Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutres2007-036WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. AB2007 -3 i 9 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council O ice Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: 7./13.07 7/24/2007. Council Division Head: ?. 1 g,o Dept. Head: 7-/&-q2 Prosecutor: F r g Purchasing /Budge[: Executive: TITLE OF DOCUMENT. WRIA 1 Watershed Management - Detailed Implementation Plan ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Resolution Detailed Implementation Plan and Appendices Memo Recommending Approval from WRIA 1 Planning Unit SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( X) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing? ( ) Yes ( X) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes (X) NO Requested Date: SUMMAR Y STA TEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE. A resolution approving the WRIA 1 Detailed Implementation Plan. The WRIA 1 Detailed Implementation Plan was developed through the cooperative efforts of local stakeholders and governments pursuant to the requirements of Phase IV grant funding, as described in RCW 90.82.043 and 90.82.048. The Detailed Implementation Plan provides additional detail to implementation tasks originally prescribed in the approved WRIA 1 Watershed Management Plan. The Detailed Implementation Plan was approved by the VaUA 1 Planning Unit with one caucus' approval conditional upon the approval of the Whatcom County Council. The Planning Unit is recommending approval by the County Council. COMMITTEE ACTION: COUNCIL ACTION: 7/24/2007: Council Approved 7 -0 Res. 2007 -036 Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number: Res. 2007 -036 Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on the County's website at. wyvw.co.wliatcom.wa.uslcouncil. 1:\2 Planning Division\WR1A 1\Phase N\Meetings \Council \Council 07 24 07 \Whatcom Co Council Agenda Bill 070724.doc SPONSORED BY: Consent PROPOSED BY: Planning INTRODUCTION DATE: 7/24/2007 RESOLUTION NO 2007 -036 CONCURRING WITH AND GRANTING APPROVAL OF WRIA 1 DETAILED IMPLEMENTATION PLAN WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of RCW 90.82, the State of Washington has been divided into various Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIAs) for purposes of the development of locally -based analysis and decision - making in regard to management of available water resources; and WHEREAS, Whatcom County lies largely within WRIA 1 and has been organized for and engaged in watershed analysis and planning since shortly after the passage of legislation establishing WRIAs approximately ten years ago; and WHEREAS, the work entailed by the planning process within WRIA I was divided into various phases; and WHEREAS, in June 2005 the various participants in the water resources planning process approved the Watershed Management Plan; and WHEREAS, upon adoption of that plan, the next phase was the development by the various participants in the Planning Unit of the WRIA I Detailed Implementation Plan (DIP); and WHEREAS, the WRIA 1 Planning Unit is composed of representatives of the various caucuses representing stakeholders with a variety of interests in regard to water resources; and WHEREAS, the WRIA I Planning Unit has over the last year, with the assistance rendered by the Department of Ecology in the form of grant funding, worked to prepare a DIP for approval by the parties intended to lead to implementation of the approved Watershed Management Plan ; and WHEREAS, at its May 23, 2007 meeting, the Planning Unit reviewed and discussed the DIP that had been developed; and WHEREAS, after that meeting, the caucuses represented on the Planning Unit submitted written comments on the DIP to the contractor facilitating its development; and Page 1 WHEREAS, the comments were compiled and discussed at the Planning Unit meeting held on June 20, 2007; and WHEREAS, at that meeting, the Planning Unit approved the DIP and recommended its approval to the Whatcom County Council; and WHEREAS, the County Council has now been briefed by County staff concerning the contents of the DIP and has had the opportunity to review its contents, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Whatcom County Council that it grant its concurrence with and approval of the WRIA 1 Detailed Implementation Plan as the plan was presented to it following Planning Unit approval. APPROVED this 24 ,lo111111111111"I , C� COUP r day of July, 2007. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON • • WWII 1�lerl�aithe Council Carl Weimer, Council Chair * 4 F0 I I t1110i APPROVED AS TO FORM: Civil e sO�{o Page 2 This July 2007 WRIA I DCLailed Impl,rncntarion Plan has been prepared Iur WRIA t Wnicrshed Vlanagemcrtt Project participants. It is a tool intended to t'acilitate hripicnientatlon of actions and strategies in the June 2005 WRIA I Watershed X-lanagemcmt Plan. The WRIA I Derailed Implementation Plan is intended as a living document that will be reviewed and updated on an ongoing basis. This July 2007 WRIA I Detailed Implementation Plan is the document approved by the WRIA l Planning Unit on Jame 20, 2007. WRIA 1 Detailed Implementation Plan July 2447 FINAL WRIA t Detailed Implementation Plan July 2007 Submitted lo: WRIA I Watershed Management Project Participants Prepared for: Whatcom County Planning and Development Services 5280 Northwest Ave. Bellingham, INA 98225 Prepared By: Geneva Consulting 1020 Austin St. Beifingham, WA 98229 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Overview 1.2 Approach for Developing the WRIA 1 Detailed Implementation Plan 2.0 Coordination of Activities with Other Planning Entities 2.1 Coordination of WRIA 1 Watershed Planning with Other WRIA i Planning Efforts 2.2 WRIA 1 Detailed Implementation Plan Action Linkages to Other Planning Efforts 3.0 Strategies for Provision of Water for Instream and Out of Stream Users 3.1 Definitions of Municipal Water Supply and Inchoate Water Rights 3.2 Water Rights in WRIA 1 3.3 Instream Flow and Water Supply Strategy 4.0 Implementation Strategies, Milestones, and Schedule 4.1 implementation Strategies 4.2 Milestones and Schedule 5.0 Funding Options 5.1 Phase IV Watershed Planning Funds 5.2 Watershed Operating and Capital Budget 5.3 Resource Commitments from Implementing Entities 5.4 Partnership Opportunities List of Figures Figure 1. WRIA 1 Watershed Management Project Organizational Structure List of Tables Table 1. Coordination of Tier 1 Watershed Management Plan Actions with other Planning Activities Table 2. Summary of Water Allocations by Subbasin in WRIA 1 Table 3. Detailed Implementation Plan Summary of Actions, Timelines, and Resources Table 4. Summary of Funding for 2007 -2009 Appendices Appendix A — Governance Structure for Implementing WRIA 1 Programs Appendix B — WRIA 1 Long Term Monitoring Program Strategy Appendix C —' WRIA 1 Caucus Comments Reviewed by WRIA i Planning Unit Appendix D —Other WRIA 1 Caucus Comments 1.0 Overview for Developing the WRIA 1 Detailed Implementation Plan 1.1 Overview A detailed implementation plan is the primary grant requirement for the first year Washington State Department of Ecology, Phase 4 Implementation Grant. The detailed implementation plan submitted to Ecology must meet certain requirements identified in RCW 90.82.043 and 90.82.048 to qualify a watershed planning area for subsequent years of Phase 4 Implementation Grant funds. The RCW 90.82.043 requirements for a detailed implementation plan focus on strategies that provide sufficient water for instream and out of stream uses and that include timelines and milestones for achieving the strategies. Specifically, strategies meeting the RCW requirements will address provision of sufficient water for a) production of agriculture, b) commercial, industrial, and residential uses, and c) instream flows. Timelines and milestones included in the detailed implementation plan need to also address planned and future use of existing crater rights for municipal water supply purposes that are inchoate (have never been used), including how the rights will be used to meet the projected future needs and how these rights will be addressed when implementing ISF strategies (RCW 90.82.048). In addition to timelines and milestones, other requirements for a detailed implementation plan as identified in RCW 90.82.043 include defining coordination and oversight responsibilities, interlocal agreements, rules, or ordinances that may be needed to implement strategies, local administrative approvals and permits, and funding mechanisms_ 1.2 Approach for Developing the WRIA 1 Detailed Implementation Plan The WRIA l Detailed Implementation Plan is based on the actions and strategies in the approved June 2005 WR1A 1 Watershed Management Plan (NG'MP), which were developed with the involvement of the caucus -based WRIA I Planning Unit, the WRIA 1 Technical Teams (Water Quality, Water Quantity, Instream Flow, Fish Habitat, Public Involvement and Education, Watershed Plan Development, and Decision Support System), the WRIA I Staff Team /Technical Team Leads (tribal, state, and local governments and utility district staff), and the WRIA 1 Joint Board (policy board). The WRIA 1 WMP actions and strategies address the goals and objectives of the WRIA l Watershed Management Project and include water quality, water quantity, instream flows, and fish habitat. As part of the process for developing the WRIA I Detailed Implementation Plan (DIP) the WRIA I %SIP actions and strategies were reviewed to confirm that strategies are in place that meets the DIP requirement for addressing provision of sufficient water for agriculture production, commercial, industrial, and residential uses, and instteam flows. For purposes of completing the WRIA 1 DIP, the actions and strategies in the WRIA 1 WMP were categorized into three tiers. The Tier 1 actions and strategies are those that are most directly associated with addressing the provision of water to instream and out of stream users and /or are strategies that relate to each other and ate important factors in addressing water use. Tier 1 strategies include the WRIA 1 Decision Support System and underlying models, the WRIA 1 instream Flow Selection and Adoption Action Plan CNXTRIA 1 ISF Action Plan), Compliance and Natural Resource WRIA 1 Detailed Implementation Plan July 2007 Page 1 Policy Integration Programs, a WRIA 1 Long Tetm iVlonitoring Strategy, and Adaptive Management. Tier 2 strategies include those actions that are likely to be included or have elements that are included in the Tier 1 strategies or that, as a stand -alone action, ate not likely to significantly influence provision of water to a user. Tier 2 strategies include Ground Water Augmentation, Water Use Efficiency, Public Involvement and Education and `Other'. For example, Ground Water Augmentation as identified in the WRIA 1 W'NIP is an action being considered or likely to be considered as part o f the WRIA 1 ISF Action Plan negotiations occurring in a specific drainage. Tier 3 strategies and actions address goals of the WRIA 1 Watershed Management Project that are not directly related to the provision of water for instream and out of stream uses. Tier 3 strategies include Ground Water Model, South Fork Temperature and High Resolution Surface Water Quality Model, Socioeconomic Study, E. Remmi, Pilot County Facility and /or Road Low Impact Design, and Low Impact Development Program Sequencing of actions and strategies in the WRIA 1 DIP includes first completing and initiating the Tier 1 actions then using Adaptive Management to evaluate the strategies to determine if they are meeting their intended objectives. The WRIA 1 DIP incorporates a realistic timeframe for implementing these actions with achievable interim milestones. A Governance and Administration task is also included in this WRIA 1 DIP as a Tier 1 strategy to ensure that the actions and strategies described in this document are implemented in a manner consistent with the June 2005 approved WRIA 1 \SIP and this WRIA 1 DIP. This WRIA 1 DIP is intended to provide a framework for implementing strategies and actions from the June 5 WRIA 1 Well', not as a forum to review the previously approved strategies and actions. The WRIA I DIP has been developed from the perspective that it is an addendum to the WRIA 1 \VTvlP and therefore does not repeat but references information from the \WRIA 1 WMP as needed to assist the reader. This WRIA 1 DIP has been prepared as an implementation tool for the entities identified as lead for actions and strategies identified in the WRIA l WIIP. It is also a tool for WRIA 1 Watershed Management Project participants to use in monitoring the implementation and progress of actions and strategies designed to achieve the water quality, water quantity, instream Flows, and fish habitat goals established in Nfarch 2000. This DIP has been prepared with the intent that it will be reviewed and updated in accordance with the adaptive management strategy- outlined in the WRIA 1 %"MP and in Table 3of this WRIA I DIP. Given the intended use of the WRIA 1 DIP as a tool for implementing actions in the WRIA I WMP, the format is primarily a series of implementation tables that chart the tasks, subtasks, milestones, timelines, leads, and other information relevant to Tier 1 strategies and actions. The narrative included in the WRIA 1 DIP is intended to support the implementation tables and address elements of RCW 90.82.043 and 90.82.048. ' The June 2005, WRIA i Watershed Management Plan identifies "Other Actions" and lists Feasibility Deep Aquifer Storage, Ttansbasin Importation, Water Transfer Procedures & Challenges, Water Banking Survey, Water Rights Information Center, and Water Reuse. V T A 1 Detailed Implementation Plan July 2007 Page 2 2.0 Coordination of Activities with Other Planning Entities This section of the WRIA 1 DIP addresses the requirement of RCW 90.82.043 to "consult with other entities planning in the watershed management area and identify and seek to eliminate any activities or policies that ate dupLicauve of inconsistent". 2.1 Coordination of WRIA I Watershed Planning with Other WRIA I Planning Efforts The primary mechanism to addtess the RCW requirement for consultation with other planning entities has been to involve the entities throughout the WRIA 1 Watershed 'Management Project process beginning with Phase I — Organization and continuing through the current Phase IV — Implementation. Section 1 of the June 2005, WRLA 1 Watershed Management Plan — Phase 1 (lyiRIA 1 \XNIP) describes the organizational structure of the WRIA 1 Watershed Management Project including the interests and caucuses represented on the WRIA 1 Planning Unit, the members of the WRIA.' I Joint Board, the purpose of the WRIA 1 Staff Team and Technical Teams, and the function of eac of these entities in the process. The structure and functions described in the WRIA 1 WAMP have remained in affect through the development of the WRIA 1 DIP. Figure I is a modification of the structure and function document included in Section 1 of the WRIA 1 WIMP and is intended to il[usttate the WRIA 1 Management Project structure. During Phase III - Watershed Managemenr Plan Development, there was extensive participation of the WRIA 1 participants in identifying actions and strategies to addtess key issues and to develop the WRIA 1 WIMP implementation strategn•. The relationship of other planning activities to the recommended actions and strategies being considered was discussed prior to making the WRIA 1 WLMP rc commend atio ns. For those recommendations that had a potential for duplication or inconsistencies, a phased or stepped approach to implementation %vas recommended that includes identify =ing potential overlapping elements as well as identifying gaps that programs may not be addressing. To address potential duplication and inconsistencies among existing programs, a specific recommendation is included in the WRIA 1 VFIMP for a Natural Resource Police Integration (NRPI) Program. The NRPI Program is a Tier 1 program in this WRIA I DIP. The WRIA 1 Salmon Recovery' Program is a multi- government planning effort with a WRIA -xvide scope to address salmon recovery and protection of ESA and non -ESA listed species of salmonids. The WRIA 1 Salmonid Recovery Plan includes implementation of actions that are directly or indirectly linked to the actions and strategies identified in the WRMA 1 DIP_ Given the linkages between these programs, the WRIA 1 Joint Board tasked the WRLA 1 Staff Team to work with the WRLA 1 Salmon Recovery Program participants to develop options for program coordination and integration. A feasibility assessment associated with implementing the concepts proposed in Phases 2 and 3 of the draft Gommaxce StntctrrreforLuplementilia [FRIA 1 Programs (Appendix A) is a task in this WRIA 1 DIP. WRIA 1 Detailed Implementation flan July 2007 [gage 3 Figure 1. WRiA 1 Watershed Management Project Organizationa[ Structure pum-C FORr.Mf TU MICA'. 1k:"Zi oR ANn2AT1r3ti I,� TRIBAL. rW_RAL STAM LOCAL RapECflVE Cat WLS OF THENNITtATIM GOWRM ENTS PAUC POLICY UfMMS FCiWMS 4,HATC0NCOI:WY WMAINAT10M PUGHa 1 cow - w&-- ,w4w'Am tL404MCILTRIM WFRA 1 Planning Unit r10yw?tyr:NS CUM= f EDUM flak; AUT"Nuff Ftiu mi. L wALL G ms STATE [F WATER DC51FW.M WeATCCH OA&M CONFRACTURE ULId , -'e UrdVecstg rMTFR RF— L1R'CE jNTE AGAKIMURE Ufv*0me4!n rAL MI 1047 Rw "�tf W'A f Fi S151 EH5 IsumrE •ao-� �hVERS PAQIECTSLPPGRT Govarnmeflt to GovltL�r>Nnont I� arnrFL[�rra GOVlNME wvfdt 4ATX3ff Ncamgxrum FMCTION watomhed Afambly Unit FoUilOa Wa.. Ara.6Ce Ca :ntr.4dy:_. Lr4a.4f, 'nrin+I -J IUP- Iilekk+ Jft oqulsal;nf, at-0 IIh� ri40QCar rnWrdlL the dwi"a -, aw a'adae,fea at r4o WHarar id Mw P,cc , naf." PLf•napprcwl -4*19 Board fn,TWLc g 6 ww wnts Adrftifttm[f v Odcft;ma fAkam Oeeldn Plannlrp Una Update 5riaesg ;rsnr.la.i fr'7 L m. c,rS, Naiwl 1md foe &vetapendnt of buQnefa. scapaa d workfechncal fea�, p.&k vr," a.-af:'acr=wQft, PabhCforxa, e.MA0. am afreT.•ceaYre�;atrt[w�nn. u&dVwzwril w3wmir. arw Roco —mad► plan aprrmri 9tdt Wedefal Gowmawmt 11Yf4ar„ar.q 4al�f,L: aA Ard ¢fnma•cala�n lrgd• V.ra -f. lecl.rt�u,s� Paiidwles h carafapm�nl q 6u6gatc scow, V"A.IG %M aYaAt tauw s I2n11y. F"bL ilweLSen�arr. �r<t�� pl_Iefv m, emYFQ Intl ehr ran Ke Chomld w dofm Fewil iric Gai4 ml�e4nal Irdtlating Garorrimunta Lurwhi Nditot. FbLllc LRLi,y 0W. -r,1 Ha.4 'At,a[cma Q; ly Cary rd Qcirinyram Onnkme..k Tribe WRIA 1 Detailed implementation Plan July 2007 Page 4 FECOLK Warar Rmauma InlCrom and STATE ftmaing Unit Gavemnwcft [;aua.ar_Prc faawn one emqae fa ctu viK. wi. P MOINlaa in sawkvinan d oyd"". MC4043 a' N", 1-4'91 W IMIM. 1>JN14 I` lO/NT�QAIt4 1LMW[ 11STRAT{VE D!0ffi 1FaNA1�rr9 R.orraM '.tca"wn, P�bw. wafru, ,ealfrordc(har•eaarearArgkat n Qr'r o[ hiLtlnGHAH ii4Y'arsel4nt tP �Al9rnrttaYi I I:V'4 ![c71[7i vcrerlr.:,ea V Gv.erx�xrea4t�rSfv NCa JCK T;L;M- ar+;7ri'97 b.•Nt4r 7a,7S , NfMa Pilo Nn 4 YiKkTC8MO0L4iTY J&f,.! foe VR+a L0114 f LiRlenAad �lfene.De�rerl P*-, t 60 fr" drSf V. d:dr r;ytomiC, 6trbaaa wpgadd to W- .6*4&gwp ycasvaQVaednser LY'N�ilQidn ;3Le YAUA t Tachnlcal Twom T�IhckaLTaoela ioducr di f cl Inhorinq :arerm"rat >frd 4rr.4 IC .�iT.4F F TEAM w �wifi "M 9d', mawr, c4nKtaNa aaa PLra A0 UrY rQ Gr of t16*befl ld9rmi!ML6a FUr Nd. T ftb !..rj,!. dEoabgrl Abokwck Tn89 Irdtlating Garorrimunta Lurwhi Nditot. FbLllc LRLi,y 0W. -r,1 Ha.4 'At,a[cma Q; ly Cary rd Qcirinyram Onnkme..k Tribe WRIA 1 Detailed implementation Plan July 2007 Page 4 2.2 WRIA 1 Detailed Implementation Plan Action Linkages to Other Planning Efforts Efforts to avoid duplication or inconsistencies between WRIA I WKP actions and strategies and other planning efforts continue into Phase IV — WNW implementation. Table 1 Lists Tier I DIP Actions, other key programs with potentially similar actions, linkages to WRIA 1 Phase IV Implementation, and the approaches being used to reduce the potential for duplicative efforts. The following summary outlines the administrative and governance steps being taken to avoid duplicative or inconsistent activities between WRIA 1 DIP and other entities' program activities: ■ Planning entities and other entities responsible for actions that affect or may be affected by actions and strategies implemented during Phase 4 of watershed planning have been participating in the WRIA 1 Watershed Management Project since Phase l of the WRIA 1 Watershed Management Project. The result of early and continued involvement of the planning entities is intended to reduce potential for duplicative or inconsistent programs being considered for inclusion in the WRIA l Wi4IP. ■ As noted in Section 2.1, the WRIA 1 Joint Board and kVRIA 1 Salmon Recovery Board are evaluating options for an integrated governance structure for the WRIA 1 Watershed Management Project and the WRIA 1 Salmon Recovery Program. The WRIA 1 Staff Team presented an option to the WRIA 1 Joint Board on April 12, 2007 that includes a three phased approach that improves program coordination in the short -term and envisions comprehensive natural resource program integration in the long -term (Appendix A). The strucrure presented is similar to concepts previously developed by WRIA 1 Watershed Management Project participants. At the April meeting, representatives of the policy hoards of both programs — the WRIA I Warershed Management Projecr and the WRIA I Salmon Recovery Program — signed approval documents implementing the First phase of the proposed option and supporting further analysis of the feasibility of the concepts presented in Phases 2 and 3. Timelines and milestones associated with completing the feasibility analysis are included in this WRIA 1 DIP as a Tier I strategy- under Governance and Administration. ■ Implementing the NRPI program included as a Tier 1 action in the NVRIA I DIP will address potential duplications and inconsistencies within existing programs administered by planning entities. Whatcom County is developing a Comprehensive Water Resource Integration Project that will be considered in implementation of the NRPI program. The estimated schedule for completing the Water Resource Integration Project is winter 2007. The outcomes of that project will be further considered as part of the timelines and milestones identified for the NRPI and Adaptive Management tasks of this WRIA 1 DIP. WRIA 1 Detailed Implementation Plan July 2007 Page 5 0. V, F! :3 7 CS s I L '4! E LI m P F. SE 21 Ji ri Ef 0. P. T -2 lu 7R 5 -2 2 7 5-i ?9.2 3 t: 5 t 3 72 E 51 mE- -ul rz 2 LY it P. 3.0 Strategies for Provision of Water for Instream and Out of Stream Users This section of the WRIA I DIP addresses the requirements of RCW 90.82.043, which requites strategies to provide sufficient water for a) production of agriculture; b) commercial, industrial, and residential use; and c) Instream flows; and RCW 90.82.048(1), which requires the DIP address planned and future use of existing water rights for municipal water supply purposes including those.that are inchoate, how these rights will be used to meet projected future needs, and how these rights will be addressed when implementing instream flow strategies 3.1 Definitions of Municipal Water Supply and Inchoate Water Rights RCW 90.03.015 as amended by SSHB 13382 defines municipal water supply as a beneficial use of water meeting any one of several criteria including: (a) supplying water to 15 or more residential connections or to a non - residential population of at least 25 people for at least 60 days a year, (b) government purposes by a city, town, public utility district, county, sewer district, or water district, or (c) delivery of treated or taw water to a public water system for the previously identified purposes. Inchoate water is a semi that is used to describe the portion of a water right that has never been used. The 2003 N[unicipal Water Law, including amendments to RCW 90.03.015 definitions for municipal water supplier and municipal vvatet supply purposes, affects water tights including those retained as inchoate. Provisions of SSHB I338, the Municipal Water Law, are being challenged by a coalition of environmental groups and a number of tribal governments. FOLK individuals and four envitonmental groups, including Puget Sound Harvesters, Washington Environmental Council, Sierra Club, and The Center for Environmental Law and Policy have filed a lawsuit in King County Superior Court challenging various aspects of this statute. Seven western Washington Indian tribes, including the Lummi Nation, have filed a similar law suit in King County- Superior Court challenging various aspects of this statute. A summary of the aspects challenged in the tribes' suit includes3: 1. The retroactive validation of water rights allegedly lost through relinquishment prior to the enactment of the statue; 2. The elimination of the beneficial use requirement for a greatly- expanded group of private water users that are now defined as "municipal users" (expansion of unused rights); 3. The elimination of previously required analysis of change of place of use requirements for entities classified as "municipal"; and 4. Changes in population served and mavmum connection requirements for certain state water holders without adequate procedural safeguards. The suit alleges that these changes adversely and unconstitutionally impact instream flow tights that benefit the tribes' treaty reserved fishing rights. The outcomes of these legal challenges will need to be taken into consideration as DIP strategies affecting future water use are implemented, evaluated, and /or developed. '- Second Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 1338, municipal \Vater Supply- — Efficiency Requirements, approved June 24, 2003, AKA "Municipal Water Law ". 3 The summary of points describing the provisions being challenged has been provided by the Lumn -i Nation. The Coxplauit for Declaratory andbyrityclive Rekej'filed by the seven tribes can be downloaded at the Washington State Department of Ecology websirc alongwith other documents associated with the Municipal Water Law (3c,%Y� tv.ecy.wa_gov /programs /wr/ rights /muni -3vtr. htn-1#docsdevelop). WRIA 1 Detailed Implementation flan July 2007 Page 8 3.2 Water Rights in WRIA 1 In 2001, the WRIA 1 Planning Unit approved work to further WRIA 1 participants' understanding of the status of water rights in WRIA 1. The intent of the staged work was to address WRIA 1 Watershed iVlanagement Project Scope of Work item 3.1.4.5 (Appendix B of the June 2005, WRIA 1 WiMP). According to the June 14, 2001 Water Rights Review Stage 1 Report, the purpose of Stage 1 was to total the amount of water allocated on "paper" for the existing water right documents. Washington State Department of Ecology water right documents and database were the basis for the work. The Stage 1 Report includes a detailed description of the methods used and tables totaling ground and surface water instantaneous withdrawal and annual acre -feet allocations by document type and by drainage. Stage 2 of the effort was completed in September 2002 and included the mapping of water right certificates, permits, applications, and select claims, identification of current water right holders, and field work to meet with and access their water rights. Table 2 is a summary of the water allocations by subbasin in WRLA 1. The Access database completed as part of the Stage i and Stage 2 effort provides the capability for querying the database in a variety of ways that support the strategies identified in the WRLr\ 1 WNW and this \VR_LA 1 DIP for addressing instream and out of stream water use. 3.3 Instream Flow and Water Supply Strategy The June 2005 \WRIA 1 WIMP refers to instream flows as perhaps the most significant challenge facing WRIA 1. While instream flows were established by Washington State in 1985 to ensure protection of instream uses including a han estable surplus of salmon, they also have major impacts on subsequent out of stream uses, which includes production of agriculture and commercial, residential, and industrial water supplies. Based on the challenges assoeiated with meeting both instream and out -of- stream water use needs, it was agreed by NWRIA l Watershed management Project participants that the latest science would be used to reevaluate instream flows. Section 2.3.1.5 of the June 2005 WRIA 1 W —NIP discusses the technical work including the construction of a Decision Support System with underlying models that will assist WRIA I Watershed Nfanagement Project participants in evaluating instream flows. Also as part of the WRIT\ I Watershed Management Project, a strategy has been developed that will use the technical tools being developed to reevaluate the existing instream flows and defines a process for meeting challenges associated with the instream and out of stream water needs. The strategy is the WRIA 1 Instream Flow Selection and Adoption Action Plan (WRIA 1 ISF Action Plan) and is summarized in Section 3 of the June 2005 WRIA I \WNIP and included as Appendix C of that document. The WRIA 1 DIP includes implementing the ISF Action Plan as a Tier 1 strategy after an evaluation of the ISF Pilot Negotiation projects has been conducted. In summary, the WRIA 1 ISI+ Action Plan is a strategy that addresses water use and water need challenges on a drainage level. It involves a negotiation process with stakeholders to achieve recommended target flows identified using the technical tools described in Section 2 of the WRIA 1 WNW. As part of the negotiation process, management approaches will be identified for achieving the flows. In drainages involving municipal water rights, the instream flow negotiation process will include those stakeholders as described in the WRIA 1 ISF Action Plan. It is anticipated that the WRIT\ 1 Detailed Implementation Plan July 2007 Page 9 Table 2. Summary of water allocations by subbasin in WRIA I Ouantilies ivere 'Estimated" if water right domwevas !were fillers out incomplete. XVRLA I Derailed Implementation Plan July 2007 Page 10 Eai5fristed DOCUMMI Eat & Doc- Allocation subDagin DOCUnients CFS GPM Acre-Feet CF3 GPM Acre•FM CF3 I GPM A00-Feet SiyjtH Fork Nook&wl AFocz&ons k'ORATS d3tabas,_-) 0.0 250.0 t439 7T.3 414D.0 2796,7 77.8 4590.1:1 2945.5 I.mjnVoVa1Ec 14 oadMc WAs 11 CLAMS Surrac? Watu 42 mwMeates 9 claims SOLUI FOrK Arj)=Ong Nrarg 2 N-3dh Fork N-_aksack Alozalloris CORATS databaisa'i 1.1 2-11-0 7975.2 M4,2 20.514.0 265.020.0 266.0 27,FE4• 273.9953 GrolinJ Wlatu 26 L,2r[M czeis 7 CldMs ILrWe Water 49 certMca7es t 5 ctalrr5 North Fork NeaksAe-oE Appft3Uons Pc-n9jrq 2!-!0 MrWle Fork N.-Oi5a _ CK... A30O590gs t%IJRATS W13fjzrae) LW "a 90.510.0 129.1 E5.0 US 129.1 -25.n 90.533-f Graurhl Watef 2 claims Surracs WateF 6 cer.:mL-s 5 claims I parraz P-IMcge Fork Nc-3ktwtAppileaUonsPenJlr.g 2-25 LCrA,eT ACrjwack AIOCWons CWRATS databasej D-13 33?8.D 7,7203.3 T38.6 114.E69.3 9&,37-1.6 733.6 I13,045.Z IS3,332.9 GrounaWatef SH cerr.>_XeG I g4 Clams I PIrrri; Surra.,-a '.'Jater 27-1 cerrcaLea 37 cWrrs LO+A,2rNcOkS3ckApp[WbonsP?r.dtnzl: 259-30D Birvi Bay AI(Eatfwis tVIRATS d3tabw.-_.1 DA 50A 61.5 ZI 947-0 E603.5 2.1 937'r, E6156.11 Grouna WaW. 19 CertMcW.-26 I dafms surra-11131ef 9 Cer-X ',XRS I Cla!ms ETrCh Ray,�IWUOiis RRndlrq: 13-25 7 Dira v";., n H 3 rto r Afwato.ne 1'.11RATS Ca Lab Lk .] 550!7 !62r4 122.2 23.2-79.6 12,012 2:2.9 23.629.6 13.S-34.; G,Qunff Water irz cer:,mwes 39 =Lass 2 p?rril, 'ijrra-- L-rimew.m. clWms Omr,o H&I).rApolaatons Penang-. SO-75 Lurrml Bay AIOCAlwis IVIRATS d3tabase) Ul a.a 69 26 4792 1967.5 2.6 491IT• 5456.5 -rouna W3tc-s 23 rErIMcW,-2& a CAZ!ms 3 p"-% surraCe,hljaler 3 Cer.11.6-ates 3 eta ms LUMrrFB&j-AFpI;73IJOns;I,NIrq: LL25 J-7 1ROOE'a Poiiii AWcaCoqs t',%rRAT_- clatabaso) 00 7.0 10 0.2 513.0 51-2.9 0.2 513.L Gmuncl Waier 7 cer M..Res pemir. SUrrace Water I cerMut-25 I CIVMS pairstRotlens . pEU.atlons P-endno-- 0 Ouantilies ivere 'Estimated" if water right domwevas !were fillers out incomplete. XVRLA I Derailed Implementation Plan July 2007 Page 10 inchoate rights, and the way in which they will be considered in meeting projected water needs will be addressed at that time. Table 3 of this WRIA l DIP includes the milestones and schedules for identifying the geographic areas for implementing the ISF action Plan. Also included in this DIP is a mechanism under the Adaptive Management section for evaluating the outcomes of all of the DIP Tier 1 strategies to determine effectiveness in addressing their intended goals. If it is determined that the ISF Action Plan and associated negotiation process is not sufficiently addressing water supply for future uses including the role of unused rights, additional strategies will be identified. The schedule outlined in Table 3 for reviewing the outcomes of Tier 1 actions is quarterly beginning during the I 1 Quarter of 2008. 4.0 Implementation Strategies, Milestones, and Schedule This section of the WRIA 1 DIP addresses the requirements of RCW 90.82.048 to identify, timelines and milestones for implementing actions and strategies addressing current and future water use and requirements of RCW 90.82.043 to identify strategies for provision of water for insrream and out of stream water users including identif -ing milestones to measure progress. 4.1 Implementation Strategies The actions and strategies in the WRIA l DIP are based on those described in the approved June 2005 WRIA 1 WIMP. As described in Section 1.2 of this WRU\ 1 DIP, actions and strategies from the WHIP have been categorized into three tiers with Tier 1 actions and strategies the current focus for implementation. Previous sections of this documenr describe the approach for preparing the WRIA 1 DIP, the approach for evaluating implementation actions, and the approach for modifying and adjusting this Wq A 1 DIP. Given that the intent of the WRIA 1 DIP is to have a tool that entities can use to identif - and prioritize implementation actions, all relevant information for implementing Tier 1 actions and strategies is summarized in a table format. Table 3 is formatted to identify the Tier 1 Action, subtasks for implementing the action, identified milestones and schedule. Also included in Table 3 is a column labeled `Related Information' that describes intent, process, and /or other information considered relevanr to implementing a subtask. Table 3 is placed at the end of Section 5.0 of this document. Since this WRIA 1 DIP is a living document, it will change as actions are implemented and technical information is refined and updated. The DIP will be reviewed on a regular basis as described under Adaptive Management in Table 3. 4.2 Long Term Monitoring Strategy A recommendation of the June 2005 WRIA 1 WIMP is to develop a comprehensive WRIA -wide long term monitoring program. Given the importance of monitoring to achieving the overall goals and objectives of the WR A 1 Watershed Management Project, the strategy for a WRIA -wide long term monitoring program was prepared concurrent with the development of this WRIA 1 DIP. The WRIA 1 Detailed Implementation Plan July 2007 Page 11 rationale for developing the long temi monitoring strategy in a parallel process to the development of the WRIA 1 DIP is that elements of the monitoting strategy could then be incorporated into the DIP with identified milestones and schedule for their implementation. This is intended to expedite the timeftame for collecting information needed to further inform implementation and evaluation of W�JP actions. There are three elements to the WRIA 1 Long Term Monitoring Strategy (Appendix 13): - An over- arching WRIA 1 -wide program that addresses WRIA I Watershed Management Project goals and objectives; ■ A complementary monitoring element that supports existing monitoring programs designed and implemented to meet an entity's specific program goals and objectives, that complement the over- arching WRIA 1 -wide monitoring program, and that are important to achieving the goals of the WRIA 1 Watershed Management Ptoject; and ■ A drainage -based monitoring element that incorporates monitoring elements associated with individual drainages as the drainages implement organized management units. Section 6 of the WRIA 1 Long Term Nlonitoring Strategy includes recommendations associated with data collection, data management, and data analysis. Milestones and schedule for implementing the recommendations have been incorporated into Table 3 of this WRIA 1 DIP. 4.3 Milestones and Schedule Table 3 of the WRIA 1 DIP identifies interim milestones and a quattetly schedule for implementing Tier I actions and strategies. The schedule in this version of the WRIA l DIP for the Tier 1 actions spans Quarter 3 of 2007 (Q3/07) to Q4/09. However, the intent is to review actions and strategies identified in the DIP on a regular basis as part of.Adaptive Management, which mar result in adjustments to both schedule and milestones. It is also important to note that Section 5 of the June 2005 WRIA I WIMP identificd actions for implementation from 2005/2006. The status of those activities was taken into consideration in developing this WRIA 1 DIP and is reflected in the milestones and schedule identified in Table 3. The availability of funding and continued commitments from \KRIA 1 Watershed Management Project participants is a critical component of implementation; changes in either may adversely affect the implementation schedule. Conversely, securing dedicated project funding and /or staff will provide additional opportunities for implementing actions. Changes affected by funding and staffing will be reflected in adjustments made to the %KRIA 1 DIP as part of Adaptive N[anagement. 5.0 Funding Options This section of the WRIA 1 DIP addresses the requirements of RCW 90.82.043 to identify funding mechanisms for implementing actions. Successful implementation of actions and strategies identified in the approved June 2005 WRIA I %VNIP and its associated WRIA 1 DIP requires a long term commitment to staffing and funding resources. Tasks to address long term funding are identified in the "Related Information" column of Table 3 of this DIP and include establishing a funding subcommittee to participate in identifying WRIA 1 Detailed Implementation Plan July 2007 Page 12 funding options for consideration. The intent is to expand on the May 2005 effort of a %XTRIA l Planning Unit subcommittee that reviewed and identified funding options for presentation to the legislative bodies. The funding subcommittee will also consider governance and integration topics given their relationship to funding. Interim funding to continue implementing actions and strategies as identified in this WRIA l DIP will be pursued through phase 1V Watershed Planning Implementation funds provided by the Washington State Legislature, commitments from participating governments for continued staff involvement, and pursuing partnerships with other entities implementing similar or complementary programs. 5.1 Phase IV Watershed Planning Funds Phase IV Watershed Planning Implementation funds include: • Up to $100,000 per year for the first three years of implementation, with a 10% required match. Second and third year funding is conditioned on the completion of an approved DIP. • Up to $50,000 for the fourth and fifth tears of implementation, with a 10% required match. • $30,000 to $60,000 is available for "Watershed Councils" for administrative support in the FY 2008 -2009 biennium from the Watershed Planning Capital Fund. It is anticipated that Phase IV Implementation funds will be applied to projects in this WRIA l DIP as outlined in Table 4 - Summary of Funding for 2007 -2009. 5.2 Watershed Operating and Capital Budget Washington State Watershed Operating and Capital Budget is a potential source for funding prioriq projects in a watershed. The total amount in the Watershed Operating Budget state -wide for the 2008 -2009 biennium is approximately $4 million, whereas the Capital Budget has about $ 12 million available for the biennium. The WRIA l Staff Team is preparing budget requests for funding consideration in this biennium to implement portions of this WRIA l DIP including stream gages and water quality- monitoring. Table 4 identities actions being considered for this funding source. 5.3 Watershed Protection and Restoration Grant The Nooksack Indian Tribe was awarded a Washington State Department of Ecology Watershed Protection and Restoration Grant ($50,000) to support integration and coordination of WRIA 1 Salmon Recovery Program efforts with other watershed planning efforts. Table 3 of this WRIA l DIP includes subtasks under Natural Resources Program Integration and Governance and Administration that reference coordinating with the Nooksack Indian Tribe on efforts pursued under the Watershed Protection and Restoration Grant. 5.4 Resource Commitments from Implementing Entities Table 3 identifies leads responsible for implementing subtasks under each Tier 1 Action. In most cases, the existing resources of the entity identified are used to support their participating staff. In addition to the lead identified, other entities' staff may be involved in the implementation of individual subtasks. For example, references to the WRIA I Staff Team as lead for overseeing the VTL% i Derailed Implementation Plan July 2007 Page 13 implementation of a subtask actually involves staff representing the Joint Board entities and the Washington Stare Department of Ecology. There has not been an effort in this DIP to quantify the value of these commitments although the total value is significant. 5.5 Partnership Opportunities Opportunities to partner with other entities involved in activities or programs underway in WMA 1 will be pursued during implementation of the WRIA 1 DIP. Table 3 identifies several subtasks where establishing partnerships may benefit or expedite implementation. The WRIA 1 Long Term vloniroring Plan is an example of a Tier 1 program that has a number of opportunities for establishing partnerships. In situations where implementation involves a partnership between implementing entities, an Interlocal Agreement, Memorandum of Understanding, or other agreement that formalizes the partnership will be developed as necessary. \VRiA 1 Derailed Implementation Plan July 2007 Page 14 :9 fi 72 'EL 72 fi 7i 75 Fi 45 u; r— t 5� J la 4 5 3 t T ri LD uj 17— 4 I I 5 2, 77! j 72 '_=per LQ LQ t L 5 R 21 4 .2 .5 P, 2 my 2 i� 5F :i 2 Ei .2.2 i� 75 4 7! 6 P 45 g: 2 -7 5i c5 , 14 ) \ \� /;\ \\ � ������ \\ \ \ \\ \} \\ � 2 1 2 7 \�\ \ \ \�j�\ \ \� \� \ \� \\� \ \\\ � \ \ \ \\ \ � \ \ \ \ \\ \ \\ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \\ \\ \ \ \ \\ \\ \ \ -5 S �\ , t ;R E- \- 3 \e=`7 = \\ \ \ \\\ \ \) \\ Ln z W o C S 3 a Fi mg - - o - y 1p tl wi In 72 1 -15 ]� _ N �x � C S 3 a A 3 z .2 72 2 F7 72 72 2 Ki .2j fj -2 -2 ti '4 72 2 -75 j ::I O cr l — O i�2 \ �\ 72 \ \ \\ \ \ \ /j \ \ \\ \ \ \ } \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\� \ ' Ei -15 \a \2 \ \ \ \\ \% \ \ \ \ \ \� \�\ � \\ \ \ \ \ \\} \\ \\\ \ \ \ \\ \ \\ } � \� \� �\ \ ) \� / -2 21 \_%\ \ \ \ \\ \\ \ \ \_ \ \ \\ � \ \ \ \ } \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ � \\ \ \\ \ \ \ /\\ \\ P i 7 � U v' V N y A � G 4 xi �S ,3 �C 0 i vF C O u u = a7 h •� 5 L j _ J — Y a L a v N A y c n '1- y ? v n � � v � � 4 .G J = � n � U � F � cp p N SA C I C, 7 J - _ m5 - - Ej H Q u i P i 7 � U v' V N y A � G 4 xi �S ,3 �C 0 i vF C O u u = a7 h •� 5 L j _ J — Y a L a v N A y c n '1- y ? v n � � v � � 4 .G J = � n � U � F � cp p N SA C I I =12 R 75 - t. o .5i iZ 72 Ej ti 2 A 7 U zi 32 7 7i 72 H 5 5 15 Ll L; O uj I =12 R 75 - t. o .5i u 'e s s T J -- _�- l _ 7, v,��'— �� n P .V- 0. c s i - 771 z7. m 711 F: LL y Ei ti a a ' J L:j y tj - y C Ti e _ E .� .q L) u 'e s s -'L C 9 z T ail i _ v j - �• 7 l d - _ ti _. _ _ _ - - - n ] _ .. 72 E Fi ] _ - _ J 3! z7 S 9r� =- - — ❑ _ - n — - Lf - = 57 0 N � U 7 -'L C IF \\ \�� \\ \�\ ��\4 )� \ \ \ \ \ \\ � 2 �4 \ \ \\ \\ \ \ \� \ \�\ �LA \ \\\ \ \ \ \ \ \\\\ < 72 A \ \) \\ \\ \. \ ) \ \} \\ \\ � � � \ \�� \ \\ \\ � \ \� - 1, 7 \ \\ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \\\ L 2 \ IF Appendix A Governance Structure for Implementing WRIA 1 Programs WRiA 1 Detailed implementation Plan July 2007 Page 27 fluthor's Note: The PP'R 4 I Joint Board approved Phase I of this document. Evaluating the concepts outlined in Phase 2 and Phase 3 is a task identified in the July 2007 WRIT[ I Detailed Implementation Plan. GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE FOR IMPLEMENTING WRIA 1 PROGRAMS INTRODUCTION One of the fundamental premises of the WRIA 1 Watershed Management Project is the recognition that effective water resource management requires a commitment extending beyond the development of the Watershed Management Plan itself. The March 2000 Scope of Work listed a number of key areas and activities to be considered in an implementation strategy including a long -term organized structure to ensure implementation, review progress, involve the public, report to entities, and respond to new needs or information. Consistent with the WRIA 1 Watershed Project Scope of Work, the June 2005 WRIA 1 Watershed Management Plan references a long -term strategy that envisions a single management approach for long -term water resource management. The structure envisioned in the June 2005 plan continues representation of a wide -range of interests; involves federal, tribal, state, and local governments; and provides community members with opportunities to become involved in managing water resources in WRIA I. APPROACH FOR DEVELOPING INIPLELVIENTATION GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE In December 2006, the WRIA I Joint Board met to discuss implementation of the WRIA 1 Watershed Management Project. As part of the discussion, the Joint Board identified the need to begin evaluating options to integrate elements of the WRIA I Watershed Management Project and the WRIA l Salmon Recovery Program for purposes of increasing coordination and maximizing resources. The WRIA 1 Staff Team was directed by the Joint Board to collaborate with the WRIA 1 Salmon Recovery Steering Committee and Work Group to identify options for the Joint Board's evaluation. The WRIA I Staff Team and the WRIA I Salmon Recovery Stecring Committee and Work Group jointly met three times to discuss and develop options for the Joint Board. The starting point for the discussions was a review of the existing organizational structures for both programs, the previous proposal developed as part of the WRIA 1 Watershed Management Project, and the Skagit Watershed Council stricture for their salmon recovery program. Based on the meeting discussions, an option was identified that met the needs of both the WRIA I Watershed Management Project and the WRIA 1 Salmon Recovery Program and addressed the Joint Board's request for an option that maximizes resources and increases coordination between programs. The option identified is also consistent with the long -term vision referenced in the June 2005, WRIA I Watershed Management Plan. OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE The governance structure forwarded to the WRIA I Joint Board for consideration occurs in three phases. Achieving identified milestones mark the progression from one phase to the next. The one exception is progressing from the current WRIA I Watershed Management Project and WRIA 1 Salmon Recovery Program structures to the Phase I structure. The two differences between the current organizational structures and the Phase I structure are found at the Administration & Policy Related Decision -Maker level and the community involvement level of the Salmon Recovery Program. At the Administration & Policy level, the Phase 1 structure %XTR A 1 Detailed Implementation Plan jul}' 2007 Page 28 combines meetings of the two program policy boards and creates a community stakeholder advisory group that provides feedback to the Salmon Recovery Steering Committee. The changes reflected in the Phase 1 structure may be implemented by the WRIA I Joint Board and WRIA 1 Salmon Recovery Board at any time. The milestones associated with the progression froth Phase 1 to Phase 2 include completion of die Comprehensive Water Resource Integration Project being pursued by Whatcom County Public Works, acceptance of the Utah State University (USU) WRIA i Decision Support System and underlying models, and completion of the technology transfer associated with the USU models - The primary difference between the Phase I and Phase 2 structure is found in the Program Oversight/Coordination Team level, which combines the WRIA 1 Staff Team and an equivalent staff level teams from the Salmon Recovery Program into a single team responsible for coordinating the WRIA 1 Watershed Management Project and Salmon Recovery Program. Phase 3 is the final phase for an integrated natural resource program governance structure. The Phase 3 structure is consistent with the long -term structure envisioned by participants of the WRIA 1 Watershed Management Project. It includes a coordinating body labeled the Natural Resource Program Coordination Team on Figure 1, which is comprised of both dedicated staff" independent of any one agency and agency staff. The vision for the Coordination Team is to eventually stricture it as a 501(c)(3) organization, which will enable them to receive grants and other funding directly. The Coordination Team's primary responsibility is to ensure that WRIA 1 program activities are being coordinated on an agency and community level. Coordination on a community level includes supporting established drainage -based management units or sub -basin groups (e.g., watershed improvement districts, flood control management sub - zones) using guiding principles developed as an outcome of the Comprehensive Water Resource Integration Project to identify priority activities within their drainage or sub -zone for consideration in WRLA 1 work plans. The priority activities identified by the drainage level groups are forwarded by the Coordination Team to the Program Oversight & Administration level for review and incorporation into draft work plans that are then submitted to Policy Decision- Makers for review and approvals. The phases summarized above are discussed in greater detail below. It is important to note that although identified milestones advance the progression from one phased structure to the next, the actual progression is not a discrete event. While the organizational stricture may be at any one phase, there are activities and decisions being made by organizations and agencies that will incrementally move the process for coordinating natural resource activities toward the long -term vision of Phase 3. PHASE 1 Phase 1 Overview The structure in Phase 1 primarily retains the current structure and function for the WRIA 1 Watershed Management Project and the WRIA I Salmon Recovery Program. There are two changes in Phase 1 over the existing structures and functions: consolidation of the policy boards 9 The WRIA I Salmon Recovery Program does not currently have a team that can be equated to the WRIA l Staff Team. The WRIA I Salmon Recovery Program decision - makers should designate the appropriate group within their framework to function in the relevant capacities as outlined in this document. WRLi 1 Detailed Implementation Plan juIN. 2007 Page 29 of the two programs into a single meeting format and addition of a community/stakeholder advisory group to the Salmon Recovery Program There are no milestones associated with implementing this phase of the organizational structure. Transitioning to Phase 1 from the two current processes of the WRIA l Watershed Management Project and the Salmon Recovery Program can occur at any time the -WRIA I Joint Board and Salmon Recovery Board opt to pursue the transition. Elements of Phase I • WRIA 1 Watershed Management Project organizational structure and functions do not change. • WRIA I Salmon Recovery Program organizational structure and functions do not change, except for the addition of the community/stakeholder group. • Government -to- government relationship continues as established for WRIA I Project. • WRIA I Joint Board and WRIA l Salmon Recovery Board meetings are combined. Members of the two policy boards are active participants in discussing all agenda items but decisions are made by the specific program's policy board. For example, salmon recovery and watershed planning agenda items are discussed by both policy boards but only Salmon Recovery Board members make decisions on salmon recovery agenda items and WRIA I Joint Board makes decisions on watershed planning agenda items. • Salmon Recovery Program establishes a community /stakeholder group that provides feedback to the Salmon Recovery Steering Committee. Inviting members or caucuses participating on the WRIA I Planning Unit to participate in the salmon recovery advisory group will further increase the level of coordination between the WRIA l Watershed Project and Salmon Recovery Program. The actual mechanics of creating the salmon advisory group and their role (including defining their level of authority) needs further discussion. Organizational Functions Legislative Bodies: • Organizational level reflects the Councils and/or Commissions of the individual jurisdictions involved in the processes. The Admin & Policy- Related Decision- Makers interact with their respective Councils or Commission. Administrative & Policy- Related Decision - Makers: • This organizational level includes the current WRIA l Joint Board membership and the WRIA I Salmon Recovery Board membership. The WRIA i Joint Board membership currently includes the City of Bellingham, Whatcom County, Public Utility District No. I, Lummi Nation, and Nooksack Tribe. Membership on the Joint Board may be expanded to include the Washington State Department of Ecology. The WRIA 1 Salmon Recovery Board membership includes the mayors of cities in Whatcom County, the executive for Whatcom County, regional director for WDFW, and designated representatives o f the Lummi Nation and Nooksack Tribes. • Meeting agendas may include topics for both programs (watershed management project and salmon recovery) but decisions are made by the policy members associated with the individual programs according to their current operational procedures. For the WRIA I Joint Board, decisions are made by consensus of the Board members. For the WRIA I Salmon Recovery WRIA 1 Detailed Implementation Plan July 2007 Page 30 Board, decisions are a consensus of the two caucuses represented by the Board. the Local Government caucus and the Co- Manager caucus. • Meetings will occur semi - annually or as needed to provide policy direction to the WRIA 1 Staff Team and Salmon Recovery Steering Committee during program implementation. Although the Policy Board is not the avenue for public outreach, observers at the Policy Board meetings may be provided an opportunity on the agenda to address the Board on watershed management project and salmon recovery topics. • This organizational level interacts with federal, state, and regional organizations at a policy- 0 level and provides policy - related direction to staff for purposes of incorporating regional issues into local work plans, programs, etc. Federal, State, Regional Involvement/Programs • Representatives of federal, state, and regional agencies and/or programs interact at the Admin & Policy - Related Decision - Makers level to discuss policies and regulations that affect local program implementation. • Representatives of federal, state, and regional entities interact with program staff as needed to provide technical or task - oriented feedback and/or involvement in program implementation. WRIA I Staff Team, Technical Teams, Planning Unit • Composition of the Staff Team, Technical Tearns, and Planning Unit remain unchanged from the current WRIA l Watershed Management Project structure and functions10_ • Roles and responsibilities of the Staff Team, Technical Teams, and Planning Unit remain unchanged from the current WRIA 1 Watershed Management Project structure and functions. • Interaction of the WRIA I Staff Team with the Admin. & Policy- Related Decision - makers is unchanged from current process. Salmon Recovery Steering Committee and Steering Committee Work Group • Composition of the Steering Committee and Steering Committee Work Group remains unchanged from the current composition. • Roles and responsibilities of the Steering Committee and Steering Committee Work Group remain unchanged from the current process. • The WRIA 1 Staff Team interacts with the WRIA I Planning Unit to keep them updated on implementation activities. The Staff Team also assists in coordinating and supporting Planning Unit meetings_ • Interaction of the WRIA l Staff Team with the Admin. & Policy - Related Decision - makers is unchanged from current process. Planning Unit • The function of the Planning Unit remains unchanged from its function as described in the June 2005 WRIA 1 Watershed Management Plan. 10 The structure and function documents for the WRIA 1 Watershed Management Project are available at www. wria I project. wsu.edu. WRIA 1 Detailed Implementation Plan July 2007 Page 31 Salmon Recovery Advisory Council • Composition of this newly created level to the Salmon Recovery Program is intended to include diverse representation of the community and will occur as part of the Salmon Recovery Program implementation process. An approach the Salmon Recovery Steering Committee should consider is to draft the fiinctions and responsibilities of the community group and then distribute it with an invitation to the members of the WRIA 1 Planning Unit or members of their caucuses to participate. • The function of the community group in the organizational structure is to provide feedback to the Salmon Recovery Steering Committee on program implementation activities and to actively participate with implementing projects. • At the Salmon Recovery Board's discretion, members of the Salmon Recovery Advisory Council may participate in the Combined Review Team (CRT)." Advantages /Challenges • Phase l can be implemented at any time without disrupting activities of individual programs or processes. • Although Phase l addresses the interests of the Salmon Recovery Program by creating a community advisory group as part of the organizational structure it does not fully address the interest of some members, which is to use the existing WRIA l Planning Unit for the Salmon Recovery Program as the Planning Unit is currently structured. The challenge of using the WRIA l Planning Unit for the Salmon Recovery Program as the Planning Unit is currently structured is the level of responsibility associated with the Planning Unit. • Inviting members of the WRIA l Planning Unit or their represented caucuses to participate on the newly created Salmon Recovery Advisory Council increases efficiency and coordination between programs. This cross - representation provides continuity in Phase 3 when merging of the caucus -based groups occurs. • There is not dedicated staff or funding for implementing the programs. • Government -to- Government relationship is retained. PHASE 2 Phase 2 Overview Two milestones that move the organizational structure from Phase l to Phase 2 is acceptance of Utah State University (USU) technical products including the WRIA 1 Decision Support System and underlying models and completion of the technology transfer associated with the products. Transition to Phase 2 may be facilitated by outcomes of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Water Resource Integration Project being pursued by Whatcom County Public Works that will provide guiding principles for implementing actions in the various county planning documents. The outcomes of the County's integration project may be available before the first two milestones and may, at the Joint Board/Salmon Recovery Board's discretion, be incorporated at some level into the Phase I structure. 11 The CRT is comprised of community and technical members. WRIA 1 Detailed Implementation Plan Jw%- 2007 Page 32 The structural change in Phase 2 over Phase I includes a change at the management/administrative staff level. This change includes combining the Phase 1 (and current) WRIA I Staff Team and an equivalent Salmon Recovery Program staff -level team identified in Phase L. The intent of a combined staff function at this organizational level is to further increase the program coordination that was initiated in Phase 1 on the policy level and apply it at the administration level. The Administrative & Policy - Related Decision -Maker organizational level remains unchanged from Phase 1. Although the structure at the staff level changes, its operational function within the WRIA l Watershed Project and the Salmon Recovery Program remains unchanged. Elements of Phase 2 • Government- to- govermnent relationship continues at the Adrnin & Policy - Related Decision - Maker level. • The WRIA I Staff Team and an equivalent Salmon Recovery Program staff level team consolidate into a single administrative staff organizational level that assures administration of the policies related to WRIA 1 Watershed Management Project and Salmon Recovery Program at the implementation level. The consolidation of the administrative staff also assures increased coordination between programs. • Phase 2 retains the capacity of the WRIA I Watershed Management Project and the Salmon Recovery Program to independently implement program elements. • The community stakeholder groups continue to function as in Phase 1. Organizational Functions Legislative Bodies: • Organizational level reflects the Councils and/or Commissions of the individual jurisdictions involved in the processes. The Admin& Policy - Related Decision- Makers interact with their respective Councils or Commission. Administrative & Policy- Related Decision - Makcrs: • This organizational level retains the structure established in Phase l (consolidating Joint Board and Salmon Recovery Board meetings and agendas)_ • Functions remain unchanged from Phase 1. • Meeting frequency and opportunity for receiving program feedback from meeting observers remain unehanged from Phase 1. Federal, State, Regional Involvement/Programs • Representatives of federal, state, and regional agencies and/or programs interact at the Admin & Policy - Related Decision- Makers level to discuss policies and regulations that affect local program implementation_ • Representatives of federal, state, and regional entities interact with program staff as needed to provide technical or task- oriented feedback and/or involvement in program implementation. • Program Oversight /Coordination • Members of the WRIA i Staff Team and the equivalent staff level team from the Salmon Recovery Program combine to form a consolidated staff -level team that provides coordinated WRIA 1 Detailed Implementation Plan July 2007 Page 33 implementation of the WRIA 1 Watershed Management Project and the Salmon Recovery Program_ • The functions of the Program Oversight/Coordination Team include implementing elements of the WRIA 1 Watershed Management Project and the Salmon Recovery Program according to approved work plans and direction provided by the Administrative & Policy- Related Decision - Makers. • The Program Oversight/Coordination Team interacts with the WRIA I Watershed Management Project and Salmon Recovery Program technical teams /work group and the community groups as structured in their respective programs. • The Program Oversight/Coordination Team interacts with federal, state, and regional representatives of agencies and programs as needed to receive technical or task - oriented feedback involving program implementation. • Meetings of the Program Oversight/Coordination Team are open to members of the WRIA I Planning Unit caucuses and the Salmon Recovery Advisory Council. An opportunity is provided at the meeting for the Team to solicit feedback from the two community groups on a regular basis. WRIA I Technical Teams and Planniniz Unit • Composition of the Technical Teams and Planning Unit remain unchanged from Phase 1. , • Roles and responsibilities of the Technical Teams, and Planning Unit remain unchanged from Phase 1. • Interaction of the Technical Teams and Planning Unit is primarily with the Program Oversight/Coordination Team. Steering Committee (Salmon Recovery) Work Groug • Composition of the Steering Committee Work Group remains unchanged. "Steering Committee" in the title of the group is changed to "Salmon Recovery" (i.e., Salmon Recovery Work Group)_ • Roles and responsibilities of the Salmon Recovery Work Group. remain unchanged from Phase I . • The Salmon Recovery Work Group interacts with the Program Oversight/Coordination Team. • Planning Unit • The function of the Planning Unit remains unchanged from its function as described in the June 2005 WRIA I Watershed Management Plan. Salmon Recovery Advisory Council • The functions of the Salmon Recovery Advisory Council remain unchanged from Phase 1. Advantages /Challenges • The transition from Phase I to Phase 2 can be implemented without disrupting activities of individual programs or processes. • Phase 2 increases the level of coordination beyond the policy decision- making level by consolidating the staff level teams of the two programs into a single team. For the individuals WRIA 1 Detailed Implementation Plan Jul}' 2007 Page 34 that currently participate on both the WRIA I Staff Team and the Salmon Recovery Program consolidating the two teams may improve efficiency of their time even considering that the length of time at a meeting may increase to cover topics of both programs. There is not dedicated staff or funding for implementing the programs. The need to fund support for this team may be needed since the day -to -day oversight and coordination occurs at this level of the organizational structure. Government -to- Government relationship is retained. PHASE 3 Phase 3 Overview Phase 3 is envisioned as the final structure for coordinated implementation of the natural resource -based programs in WRIA 1. The milestone associated with moving from Phase 2 to Phase 3 is the adoption of instream flows negotiated under the WRIA 1 Instream Flow Selection and Adoption Action Plan and completion of the second phase of the WRIA I Watershed Management Plan. The Phase 3 structure integrates and supports established flood control management sub -zones and other drainage -based management structures (e.g., Bertrand Watershed Improvement District). There are a number of changes that occur with the transition from Phase 2 to Phase 3. Primary changes include adding a Natural Resource Program Coordination Team of dedicated staff and agency staff, redefining the role of the administrative staff, expanding the policy level representation to include state and federal elected representatives, and increasing coordination among and between programs. Elements of Phase 3 • Government-to- government relationship continues at the Policy Decision - Makers. • The Program Oversight/Coordination Team from Phase 2 is renamed Program Oversight & Administration. In Phase 3, this level of the organization transitions to a program oversight team with the capacity to make administrative decisions necessary to implement Policy Board approved work plans and directives. • Representation at the Program Oversight & Administration level may be expanded from WRIA 1 Watershed Project and Salmon Recovery Program administrative and program staff to include representation of other resource -based programs that this structure is designed to coordinate (e.g., watershed council type approach). Involvement of federal, state, and regional program representatives and coordination with their respective programs occurs at this level. • The Policy Board (formerly the Admin & PoIicy- Related Decision - Makers) from Phase 2 transitions to a broader policy level group by inviting participation of federal and state legislative representatives. • Composition of the Program Coordination Team is staff independent of any one agency dedicated to coordinating implementation of natural resource based programs including but not limited to the WRIA 1 Watershed Project, Salmon Recovery Program, and drainage based management units. The Program Coordination Team serves as an integrated clearinghouse for other agencies or organizations looking for support in coordinating their activities with other programs. Obtaining 501(c)(3) status for this organizational level has been suggested as an option for operating the Program Coordination Team. WRIA 1 Detailed Implementation Plan Julv 2007 Page 35 Organizational Functions Legislative Bodies: • Organizational level reflects the Councils and/or Commissions of the individual jurisdictions involved in the processes. The Policy Decision - Makers and the Program Oversight & Administration levels interact with their respective Councils, Commissions, and Boards. Policy Decision - Makers: • The policy board of the natural resource programs (i.e., WRIA I Watershed Project and WRIA I Salmon Recovery Program) is expanded from Phase 2 to include federal and state legislative representatives. • The Policy Decision- Makers review and discuss policy- related local, regional, state, and federal topics as they relate to local natural resource programs. Policy direction associated with these discussions is formulated and provided to the Program Oversight and Administration level staff to administer and implement accordingly. • Meeting frequency for the Policy Decision- Makers is twice annually. • The Govemment-to- Government relationship is retained at the Policy Decision- Makers level. Federal, State, Regional Involvement(Prozrams • Representatives of federal, state, and regional entities interact at the Program Oversight & Administration and Program Coordination Team levels as needed to provide technical or task - oriented feedback and/or involvement in program implementation. Program Oversight & Administration • A transition from Phase 2 to Phase 3 includes modifications to the administrative staff level of the structure. Phase 2 administrative staff is a consolidation of the WRIA i Staff Team and Salmon Recovery Steering Committee. Phase 3 includes these participants in addition to other representatives of resource -based programs. The concept of a watershed council is the framework for composition of the Prograin Oversight & Administration organizational level. . • The Program Oversight & Administration level is responsible for overseeing program implementation and has limited authority to make decisions necessary for administering the Policy Board's directives. • The Program Oversight & Administration staff interacts with the Program Coordination Team to oversee program implementation occurs consistent with Policy Board direction. • The Program Oversight/Coordination Team interacts with federal, state, and regional representatives of agencies and programs as needed to receive technical or task - oriented feedback involving program implementation. • Meetings at the Program Oversight & Administration level are open to the community. Agendas will include a public comment opportunity. Program Coordination Team . The Program Coordination Team is administrative and technical staff necessary to serve the community as an integrated clearinghouse for resource -based programs and activities. Staff comprising the Team is anticipated as dedicated staff independent of any one agency. %Xq Ir1 I Detailed Implementation Plan July 2007 Pale 36 Obtaining 5O1(c)(3) status for this level of the organizational structure is suggested as the means for achieving the desired function. • One function of the Program Coordination Team is to interact on a daily basis with staff implementing resource -based programs, community stakeholder groups, and non - profit groups and other agencies involved in activities that have a direct or indirect relationship to other resource -based programs. Community /Stakeholder Involvement • A Watershed Advisory Group is one option for community/stakeholder involvement under Phase 3. Pursuing this option would result in a merging of the WRIA I Planning Unit and the Salmon Recovery Advisory Council with representation of additional community members representing elements of other resource -based programs. To accommodate sub -basin specific issues and needs, subcommittees could be created under the umbrella of the Watershed Advisory Group. • A second option for active community/stakeholder involvement is to ensure that each resource - based program has its own community group associated with it similar to the Planning Unit and the Salmon Recovery Advisory Council for the WRIA 1 Watershed Project and the Salmon Recovery Program, respectively. • In addition to a separate community /stakeholder group, the community has opportunities to provide feedback on programs at the Program Oversight & Administration and the Program Coordination Team levels. Advantages /Challenges • The government -to- government relationship is retained. The coordinating body is comprised of dedicated staff that is not part of anyone agency. This ensures the program coordination occurs at the level anticipated in approved work plans. • A dedicated staff team requires dedicated funding. A source of funding for the coordination team will need to be identified and pursued. • Expanding the Policy Board to include state and federal legislative representatives increases opportunities for obtaining and leveraging funds. • Community members have multiple opportunities to participate in the process. \TRL-1 1 Derailed tinflementation flan July 2007 Page 37 L i i' 0 z` 0 Q z a u V 4 C., t 4 o L J � d A L a 12 s o ° c ° v .6 Q •n H � c E._ ii:� O � I C :r LL J� -n T 'J Y j y � � x 7 � •n � v M Vl L^ O ^f. = _ C - Z Y .. —y J1 � O - y C J ©U - U p = J O a r'1 > m Y a I >A - ... ... .. . ..... .... ... u` 8 m y � J = �WAODDU UOUII�S - n iz - .... ..,, 'ouno:) c [i ,uosl APV a I >A ... ... .. . ..... .... ... u` .... ... ......... ... . ...... ...._ ........... dnoig Kiom m y J = �WAODDU UOUII�S - n iz - .... ..,, 'ouno:) c [i ,uosl APV KOa � aA s SUICJl [e3mq>,1- J Nufl3ucuueld r � Ra v „e '._ dnoJ� y�oAk . L -- oJlln�uuo� 3uu�JIS C L ~ � V C � r a pauno.) njosmpV n KIJ,10JJN OOtU[us �1 u r 0 h Z i SWPJ30J�I/IOJUIJ, %IOnU[ $ a°. o IUUO!33H `JU:IS `[MPJ3 `- e - s + x Inq� �uluue[�[ r Appendix B WRIA 1 Long Term Monitoring Program Strategy WRLk 1 Detailed Implementation Plan J,�t 2{707 Page 39 WRIA 1 Long Term Monitoring Program — Strategy for Implementation Section 1- Introduction The June 2005 W _1A 1 Watershed Management Plan includes a recommended action of developing and implementing a WRIA 1 Long Term Monitoring Program (LTVIP). This document outlines the strategy for implementing the recommended action. An effective long -term comprehensive monitoring program is essential to measuring progress and success ofactions implemented as part of the %VRIA 1 Watershed Management Project. It is also important to informing additional recommendations or adjustments to the WR A 1 Watershed Management Pro}ect that may occur under Adaptive Management. As part of the kvi`R 1 1 LTMP strategy, the WRIA 1 Instream Clow /Fish Habitat Technical Team and the kXgUA 1 Salmonid Recovery Steering Committee are collaborating on a habitat monitoring methodology. Elements of the methodology will be incorporated into the WRIA 1 LTMP as part of Adaptive Management. A comprehensive and viable monitoring program requires long -term funding commitments. Generally, however, tribal, federal, state, and local government funding for monitoring activities is limited and of short duration. The WRIA 1 LTMP strategy recognizes that to maximize limited resources, monitoring activities need to be planned and conducted in partnership with other agencies and organizations. These partnerships also provide for coordination with other WRU I programs such as the WRIA 1 Salmon Recovery and with other entities involved in monitoring activities in WRIA 1. The partnerships may take the form of funding contributions, staff for implementing monitoring activities, and /or agreeing to long -term commitments to implement specific monitoring activities. The WRIA 1 LTMP strategy purpose and approach is outlined in Section 2. Section 3 of this document identifies the goals and objectives upon which the %XTJA 1 strategy is based. The elements of the WRIA 1 LTMP strategy, including approaches for integrating and coordinating with other agencies, are summarized in Section 4. Section 5 describes approaches for managing and reporting data collected under the WRIA 1 LTMP. Section 6 includes a summary of recommendations and milestones associated with implementing the WRIA I LTMP strategy as it is described in this document. Section 7 summarizes the Adaptive Management element of the WRIA 1 LTMP strategy. WRIA 1 Detailed Implementation Plin July 2007 Page 40 Section 2 — WRIA 1 Long Term Monitoring Program Purpose The purpose of the WRIA 1 Long Term Monitoring Program (LTNIP) is to establish and maintain an ambient monitoring program sufficient to assess current water quality, water quantity, and fish habitat conditions and trends and to protect beneficial uses in WRIA 1. The monitoring program will include data collection, quality assurance, data management, data analysis, and reporting. Data collected will inform policies and management actions necessary to meet the goals of the WRIA 1 Watershed Nfanagement Project by allowing for evaluation of the effectiveness of management actions and refinement of management tools. The WRIA 1 LTNIP consists of a tiered strategy that includes: • An over - arching WRIA 1 -wide program that addresses WRIA 1 Watershed Management Project goals and objectives; A complementary monitoring element that supports existing monitoring programs designed and implemented to meet an entity's specific program goals and objectives, that complement the over - arching WRIA 1 -wide monitoring program, and that are important to achieving the goals of the WRIA 1 Watershed Management Project; and • A drainage -based monitoring element that incorporates monitoring elements associated with individual drainages as the drainages implement organized management units are implemented. Funding for the monitoring program will be through a eombination of federal, tribal, state, and local funding. A dedicated funding source is needed to support implementation of the LTNfP. The program strategy, will be reviewed on a regular basis as described in the adaptive management element of this document. The spreadsheet included as Appendix A identifies sampling stations for the WRIA 1 LTNIP, parameters measured, frequency, costs, and lead endt % The spreadsheet is a working document that,,vill be completed and /or modified as the WRIA 1 LT \IP is implemented. Section 3.0 -- WRIA 1 Long Term Monitoring Program Goals and Objectives The WRIA 1 Long Term Monitoring Program involves monitoring surface and ground water chemistry, stream flows, ground water levels, meteorological conditions, water use monitoring, biological conditions necessary for salmon and shellfish protection and restoration, and monitoring the implementation of management actions. The goals and objectives identified in this section of the WRIA 1 LTMP strategy relate to the over- arching WRIA 1 Detailed Implementation Plan July 2007 page 41 WRIA 1 -wide program and are listed for water quantity, water quality, and instream flow/ Fish habitat. 3.1 Over - Arching Monitoring Element 3.1.1 eater Quantity Goal 1- Collect water quantity data to meet the following objectives: • Quantify stream flows at identified gage locations • Refine water use estimates. • Evaluate the effectiveness of actions implemented For flow augmentation. • Identify status and trends in climate, instream flows, water use, and ground water levels. 3.1.2 Water Quality Goal 1- Collect water quality data to meet the following objectives: • Determine if applicable water duality standards are being met at sampling stations throughout WRIA 1. • Evaluate if TVIDL targets for identified parameters are being achieved in basins and sub - basins for which TMDLs are in place. • Determine the duration and extent of water quality standards violations that correlate to storm or other events. • Identify status and trends in surface and ground water quality. 3.13 instream Flow/ Fish Habitat There are several goals and objectives identified For addressing instream flow and fish habitat. Addressing these goals and objectives will be done in conjunction « -ith the WRIA I Salmon Recovery Program implementation. Goal 1- Collect and analyze data to support negotiated and regulatory instream flows. Objectives include: • Quantify flow conditions at stream gaging stations at key locations and at instream flow measurement sites to document existing conditions. • Determine if negotiated or target instream flows are being met at identified locations. Goal 2- Determine current fish habitat conditions to meet the following objectives: • Quantify instream habitat accessible to upstream migrating adult and rearing juvenile salmon. For early run Chinook the WRIA 1 Salmon Recovery Board has identified 4 relevant parameters: abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity. • Assess the quality and potential use of instream habitat currently accessible to salmonids for use as a benchmark beginning with priority geographic areas. WMA 1 Detailed Implementation Plan July 2007 Pa ge 42 Goal 3- Quantitatively determine if fish habitat conditions are improved by management actions Goal 4- Collect and analyze information that will provide a better understanding of factors contributing to proper functions or impairments of the physical and biological processes that create and maintain properly functioning salmonid habitats within WRIA 1. 3.2 Complementary Monitoring Programs Existing monitoring programs that complement the WRIA 1 over - arching monitoring program and that are important to achieving the overall goals of the WRIA 1 Watershed Management Project have specific goals and objectives that those monitoring programs are designed to achieve. The goals and objectives for the complementary programs are available can be obtained through the entities responsible for implementing the programs. Section 4 -- WRIA I Long Term Monitoring Program Design The WRIA 1 LTMP strategy is designed as a tiered program that includes. an over - arching WRLA 1 monitoring element designed to achieve the goals and objectives identified in Section 3; the complementary monitoring programs implemented by entities to meet their program- specific needs and that are important in achieving the overall WRIA 1 Watershed Management Project goals identified in the June 2005 WRIA 1 Watershed Management Plan; and the individual drainage monitoring plans that will be developed and implemented as drainage -based management units are established (e.g., ,vatershed improvement districts). Some aspects of the over - arching monitoring program are underway while others are scheduled for implementation. The complementary programs are existing programs that generally have dedicated funding such as the Lake Whatcom monitoring program and the City of Bellingham urban streams program. Individual drainage monitoring plans are new monitoring programs that will be designed and implemented within the framework of the Adaptive Management element of the WM 1 LTMP strategy and the WRIA 1 Watershed Management Project. The following is a summary of the WRIA 1 LTMP strategy. 4.1 Over - Arching WRIA -Wide Monitoring Element The over - arching monitoring element of the program is designed to meet the core needs of the WRIA 1 Watershed Management Projecr. Monitoring associated with this element of the WRIA 1 LIMP includes measuring stream flows, ,,eater quality , and meteorological conditions for purposes of achieving the goals and objectives listed in Section 3. The strategy is built on developing and formalizing partnerships with entities involved in monitoring activities within WRIA 1 at identified core stations. The core stations are the WRIA 1 Derailed Implementation Plan July 2007 Page 43 stations considered necessary for collecting data to address the WRIA 1 LTMP over - arching goals and objectives. Formalizing partnerships with the entities involved in monitoring activities at these stations will maximize available monitoring resources, potentially leverage additional federal, state, and local monitoring funds, and help ensure coordination among programs underway in WRIA 1. The map included in Figure 1 identifies the core stations for the over - arching monitoring element of the WRIA 1 LTMP strategy. The following is a summary of each constituent of the over - arching WRIA -wide monitoring program. Although each constituent is described separately (e.g., water quantity, water quality), it is recognized that they are inherently linked. lVater Ouantity The United States Geological Survey (USGS) and Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) have stream flow measurement gages installed throughout WRIA, 1. The types of gages installed include telemetry, stand -alone (recorder), and manual stage height. Twenty- six (26) of the twenty -nine (29) gage locations identified in Figure 1 are existing gages operated either by the USGS or Ecology. The three remaining gages are located on the north side of the U.S. /Canada boundary and are operated by Environment Canada. The twenty -nine stream gage locations have been reviewed in the context of the goals and objectives of the over - arching monitoring element (Section 3) and the WRIA 1 Watershed Management Project. Table 1 is a summary of stream gage locations, type, and entity responsible for installation of the gage. The locations of the stream gages listed in Table 1 correspond to the mapped gages in Figure 1. All of the identified stream gages are considered critical for achieving the WRIT.. 1 program goals and objectives. The existing USGS and Ecology gage stations are funded, operated, and maintained through programs of the sponsoring agency, partnerships with Tribal governments, and /or partnerships with local governments. Given the importance of the stations to the overall WRIA I project, the WRIA 1 LTMP strategy focuses on identifying and pursuing options to ensure continued funding for the gages identified in Figure 1. Options being considered include consolidating gages currently operating under partnership agreements for fixed periods of time and /or that are dependent on grant funding under the auspices of a single agency. Gage stations maintained and operated for local programs such as the Whatcom County Flood Hazard Management Program that have a dedicated funding source are not being considered for consolidation. Agreements or other documentation associated with ensuring continued operation and maintenance of the stream flow gages is included in the appendices of the WRLA 1 LTIMP Strategy. In addition to flow, a number of the existing Ecology telemetry stations collect stream and air temperature. The WRIA 1 LTMP strategy includes incorporating stream temperature WR 2V i Detailed Implementarion Plan July 2007 rage 44 Table 2. Summary of WRIA I Long Term Monitoring Program Stream Gage Location Station ID Gage Type Agency' Period of Recorde Comments Pepin Cr at International Boundary 0814H156 Recorder Environment Canada 1985 - present Seasonal data collection Bertrand Cr at InternationalBoundary 08MI -1152 Recorder Environment Canada 1984 - present Seasonal data collection Bertrand Cr Tdb nr H Street nr Lynden 12212430 Telemetry USGS Initiated 2007 Nckv station initiated 1/16/07 Bertrand Cr @ mouth OIN060 Telemetry Ecology 2003- present Fishtrap Cr @ International Boundary 08MH153 Recorder Environment Canada 1984 - present Continuous record 1987 - present; seasonal record 1984 -1986 Fishtrap Cr @ Front St. 12212050 Recorder USGS 1998 - present Funded through 6/07 Kamm Slough @ Northwood 01M090 iVlanual Ecology 2003- present Tenmile Cr abv Barrett Lake 01 PO80 Telemetry Ecology 2003 - present Nooksack River @ Ferndale 12213100 Telemetry USGS 1967- present Nooksack River @ North Cedarville 12210700 Telemeinr USGS 2000 - presenr Seasonal gage (mid -October through April) Nooksack River @ North Cedarville 01A120 \- lanual Ecology 1959 - present Long term station, sampled monthly :Anderson Cr @ mouth OIL050 Manual Ecology 2003- present Anderson Cr @ Smith Rd nr Goshen 12210900 Recorder USGS 1998- present Funded through 6/07 Nooksack River above the 2NIF OIA140 Telemetry Ecology 2003- present Nooksack River @ Brennan O1A050 Manual Ecology Long term station, sampled monthly Racehorse Creek 12206900 Recorder USGS 1998- present Funded through 6/07 Maple Cr @ mouth 01KO50 Telemetry Ecology 2003- present NF Nooksack River BL Cascade Creek 12205000 Telemetry USGS 1937 - presenr \IF Nooksack River near Deming 12208000 Telemetry USGS 1920 - present NIF Nooksack River abv Clearwater Cr 016100 Recorder Ecology 2003- presenr Clearwater Creek near Welcome 12207850 Recorder USGS 1998 -2006 Funded through 6/07 Warm Creek at Welcome 12207750 Recorder USGS 1998 -2006 Funded through 6/07 SF Nooksack @ Potter Rd 01F070 Telemetry Ecology 2003- present SF Nooksack River nr Edfro Cr 12209000 Telemetry USGS 1934- present Skookum Creek 12209490 Telemetry USGS 1998- present Funded through 6/07 Hutchinson Cr nr Acme OIC070 Telemetry Ecology 2003 - present Sumas Rat Telegraph Rd OI D100 Manual Ecology 2003 - present Dakora Cr at Giles Rd 01Q070 Manual Ecology 2003 - present California Cr at Valley View 01R090 Manual Ecology 2003 - present 'The agency listed is the agency that installed the gage; it is not assumed to be the agency responsible for maintaining and /or funding the continued operation of the gage. ',The period of record is presented as general information; the initiating year is not untended to imply data collection began the First day of January of any identified year. %NrRIA 1 Derailed Implementadon Plan July 2007 Page 45 into all of the telemetry and recording stations in WR[A 1. Additionally, the WRIA 1 strategy includes incorporating dissolved oxygen measurements as part of the data collected at the gage stations on an opportunistic basis such as when flow data are downloaded or when station maintenance occurs. Incorporating these additional measurements into data collection at the stream gage locations is further discussed under Dater uality and Meteorological Conditions. As part of the collaboration between the WRitl. 1 Instream Flow /Fish Habitat Technical Team and the',XTJA 1 Salmonid Recovery= Steering Committee Work Group three subcommittees were formed to develop a monitoring methodology for each parameter being addressed by the group. The Water Subcommittee will be addressing stream flow, the addition of continuous recording of stream temperature, and the periodic measurements of dissolved oxygen as part of this joint effort, which will result in completing a monitoring methodology description that addresses of these items. The template for the monitoring methodology is included as Appendix A of this document. The strategy for managing the data at all of the monitoring sites to ensure consistency in data reporting and compatibility- for use in the WRIA 1 Decision Support System and its underlying models is described in Section 5. Water Oitality Water quality stations for the over- arching monitoring element of the WRIA 1 LTNIP strategy focus on meeting the goals and objectives outlined in Section 3. There are two types of water quality monitoring stations identified in Figure 1- continuous Flow stations that include water quality- measurements (i.e., water temperature and periodic measurements of dissolved oxygen) and water quality stations that do not gather flow data and that use grab samples for collecting data on selected hater quality parameters. For the water quality only stations, analysis will be performed for a range of parameters including. dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH, suspended solids, nutrients, turbidity, and bacteria. Both types of stations are important for achieving the goals and objectives of the WRIA 1 LTMP strategy. Table 2 includes a list of both types of ;eater quality monitoring stations — combination flow/quality (F /Q) and water quality only - and parameters currently being measured and recommendations for additional ones. The monitoring locations listed in Table 2 correspond to those mapped in Figure 1. The continuous (telemetry and recorder) flow and quality stations identified in Figure 1 may be considered for consolidation and operation under the auspices of a single agency (refer to Vaterouantity discussion). In addition to collecting stream flow, some of these stations currently collect both stream and air temperature. The WRIA 1 LTN[P strategy for the continuously recording stations includes further maximizing resources by incorporating WRIA 1 Detailed Implementation Plan July 2007 Page 46 dissolved oxygen (DO) measurements in proposals For consolidation by taping DO measurements when servicing the station. The `XRIA 1 LTNIP strategy includes identiFying a process to coordinate with entities on data collection. This process will include communicating with Environment Canada regatding the three gages they operate at the U.S. /Canada boundary — Pepin, Bertrand, and Fishtrap — to discuss the feasibility of incorporating stream temperature and periodic dissolved oxygen measurements into their data collection activities. There are eight (8) crater quality stations identified in Figure 1 For the over - arching monitoring element of the WRIA 1 LTMP strategy. These sites have been or are being monitored by Ecology as part of their on -going ambient monitoring activities, the 5 -yeat rotational" sites for additional monthly sampling, and /or the total maximum daily load (TN[DL) program. Seven of the eight stations are currently monitored. Two of the eight stations are long -tetm ambient monitoring stations sampled by Ecology on a monthly basis and have a Long Period of record ( >25 years). Five of the stations are sites currently being monitored by Ecology through September 2007 as part of the 5 -year rotating schedule. One station — Tenmile Creek -- is not currently being monitored for the full set of water quality parameters previously identified, but it is a station that had been part of the TNIDL sampling program. The locations described above and identified in Table 2 are selected for the over- arching WRIA 1 monitoring strategy for a number of reasons including 1) availability of a historic database for assessing trends in water quality, 2) a spatial distribution of stations beneficial to assessing current conditions, 3) potential for maximizing resources through partnerships with the agencies perForming monitoring, and 4) a database that may provide information for evaluating effectiveness of management practices /programs. The Water Subcommittee created as part of the collaboration between the WRIA 1 Instream Flow /Fish Habitat Technical Team and the WRIA 1 Salmonid Recovery Steering Committee Work Group is developing a monitoring methodology that will address a number of the parameters listed (further discussed under Introduction and lvater _Quantity). The template used by the \Grater Subcommittee will also be used for the parameters the Subcommittee does not address. The template for the monitoring methodology is included as Appendix: A of this document. 1' On a 5 -year rotating schedule, the Washington State Department of Ecology funds 1 -year of monthly water quality sampling for additional ambient stations in WRIAs across the state. %XM A 1 Detuled Implementation Flan July 2007 Page 47 c r— O CD C G t; 0 t; C ti J 46-J ` 1� rr 2 fl 13 iz �r c S� I l�Ilri Co Ln A- J�-I Ui� .." - y - a! i'�U� cs _`•'!1 .i \i` jai 41—J � _ � � �g - -- -% as ,�;'•_; - ... - 4.r:, f . -_ -- ' �'.'' rf rr e ��i''J u r M- "�� z Q - Jnu� ,. - e, S' a (13 CY In a ra tiY! •A 1 m O 7 iJl SZ NIZ ` _ ` n y j T ,f ly' (! S �'Y' yf r— f� , `` ' S �•l J ra LL if' f r `••f a L } +y ,`` E_ L C V m :' f.`• a -.� { a 5 -' �' O m -F - i c r— O CD C G t; 0 t; C ti J Table 3. WRIA 1 Long Term Monitoring Program Water Quality Stations Location Station ID Station Type Parameter Comments Current Recommend Bertrand Cr Trib nr 12212430 Combination F /Q13 Flow, air & water Periockc DOSS Nexvly instailed USGS station I-I Street nr Lyndea temp (1/16/07) Bertrand Cr @ OIN060 Combination F /Q; Flog, air & water This water qua[•ityy� station is one mouth Water Quality Station temp; nutrients, of the stations on Ecology's 5- DO, pH, year cycle. The full set of water suspended solids, quality parameters n-ill be turbidity•, bacteria measured 10/06 -9/07. The LTi4[P strategy recommends continued sampling of all parameters beyond 9/07. Fishtrap @ Front St 12212050 Combination F/Q Flow Water temp, Periodic DO Fish trap @ Flynn Rd O1 U070 Water Quality Station DO, nutrients, This warer quality station is one water temp, pl-1, of the stations on Ecology's 5- suspended solids, year a,cle. The full set of water turbidity, bacteria quality- parameters will be measured 10/06 -9/07. The LUMP strategy recommends continued sampling of all parameters either at Flynn Rd or at Front Sr. Tcnmile Cr A%, 01P080 Combination F /Q; Flow, air & water DO, nutrients, This location is nor currently Barrett Lake Water Quality Station temp pH, suspended monitored on an ongoing basis solids, for the full range of parameters turbidity•, listed. Collecting the full range bacteria of water quality parameters is a recommendation in the WRIA I LTL\IP strategy-. Nooksack It a OIA050 Water Quality- Station DO, nutrients, Brennan pH, suspended solids, turbidity bacteria, temp Nook-sack R @ 01A120 Water Quality Station DO, nutrients, North Cedan•ille pH, suspended solids, turbidity, bacteria, temp Anderson Creek @ 12210900 Combination F/Q Flow Water temp, Smith Rd ar Goshen Periodic DO Nook-sack R above OIA140 Combination F /Q; Flow, air temp; Water temp at This water quality station is one INIF Warcr Quality Station nutrients, DO, flow station of the stations on Ecology's 5- pH, temp, year cycle. The full set of water suspended solids, quality parameters will be ntrbidiv, bacteria measured 10/06 -9/07. The U17NIP strategy recommends continued sampling of all parameters beyond 9/07. 13 Combination F/Q station is a combination stream flow and water quality station. ld Addition of periodic DO (dissolved oxygen) measurements is recommended for all Combination F/Q stations. V RIA 1 Detailed Implementation Plan July 2007 Page 49 Location Station ID Station Type Parameter Comments Current Recommend Racehorse Creek 12206900 Combination F/Q Flow Water temp, Periodic DO Maple Cr @ mouth 01I<050 Combination F/Q Flog, air & water Periodic DO temp NF Nooksack River 12205000 Combination F/Q Flow Water temp, $L Cascade Cr Periodic DO NIF Nooksack River 01G070 Water Quality Station DO; nutrients, This water qualin• station is one pH, suspended of the stations on Ecology's 5- solids, turbidirr, year cycle. The full set of water bacteria, remp quality parameters will be measured 10/06 -9/07_ The LTN[P strategy- recommends continued sampling of all Parameters beyond 9/07. N[F Nooksack River 12208000 Combination F/Q Flow, water Periodic DO near Deming remp N[F Nooksack River 016100 Combination F/Q Flow Water temp, abv Clearwater Cr Periodic DO Clearwater Cr nr 12207850 Combination F/Q Flow Water temp, Welcome Periodic DO Warm Cr at Welcome 12207750 Combination F/Q Flow Water temp, Periodic DO SF Nooksack @ 01F070 Combination F /Q; Flow, air & water This water qualin station is one Potter Rd. Water Quality Station temp; nutrients, of the stations on Ecology's 5- DO, pUl, year cycle. The hill set of water suspended solids, quality parameters will be turbidity, bacteria measured 10/06 -9/07. The LT\IP srrategy recommends conrinued sampling of all parameters beyond 9/07. SF Nooksack R nr 12209000 Combination F/Q Flow Water remp, Edfro Cr Periodic DO Skookum Cr 12209490 Combination F/Q Flow Watcr remp, Periodic DO Hutchinson Cr nr 01C070 Combination F/Q Flows, air & water Periodic DO Acme temp As with the continuous flow stations, dedicated funding and /or commitments from sponsoring agencies is needed for on -going water quality monitoring at the stations identified in the WRIA i LTMP strategy. Obtaining funding agreements, partnership agreements, and /or other documentation associated with ensuring continued monitoring of water quality is an essential part of the WRIA 1 LTMP strategy. Insheanr Flow /Fish Habitat The WRIA 1 Instream Flow /Fish Habitat (ISF /FFl) Technical Team and the WRIA 1 Salmon Recovery Steering Committee Work Group are meeting jointly to develop a Habitat Monitoring iiethodolog}r that addresses issues and selects methods for monitoring that will WRIA 1 Derailed Implementation Plan Jul), 2007 Page 50 achieve the salmonid habitat monitoring objectives of both the WRL . 1 LTMP strategy (Section 3) and the WRIA 1 Salmonid Recovery Program. . The meeting summary from the initiating meeting, which outlines the process for developing the methodology, is included in Appendix B of this document. Relevant elements of the completed Habitat Monitoring Methodology, including funding commitments and /or partnership agreements to implement the methodology, will be incorporated into the WRIA 1 LTMP strategy as part of Adaptive Management. Afeleoinlogical Conditions Figure 1 identifies stations for collecting meteorological conditions. The WMA 1 LTMP strateg<< is to support existing stations and to establish a new station in the upper Middle Fork Watershed. The new station will be established as part of Adaptive Management. 4.2 Complementary Monitoring Programs A number of program - specific monitoring programs are being implemented by agencies. The goals and objectives for these monitoring efforts are designed specifically to address the programs' needs. Several of these existing monitoring programs, however, also support the overall goals and objectives of the WRIA 1 Watershed Management Project. Therefore, these programs are identified as part of the WRIA 1 LTMP strategy and include monitoring associated with the Whatcom County Shellfish and Marine Resources Programs, Ecology water use monitoring (WAC 173 -173), the Lake Whatcom Management Program, and the City of Bellingham Urban Stream Program. Stream flow and temperature monitoring in the Middle Fork Nooksack River are being conducted by different entities including the City of Bellingham and the Department of Ecology. Although the effort underway in the Middle Fork is a complementary program to the over- arching WRIA 1 LTMP strategy, a recommendation will be made to the entities currently involved in the existing complementary program to also record temperature at a downstream location on the Middle Fork. Data collected by local industries and the Northwest Clean Air Agency may provide information associated with meteorological conditions that support the goals and objectives of the WRIA 1 LTMP. The location of these stations and the type of data collected will be identified and considered as part of the WRIA 1 LTMP strategy. Outcomes of the review will be considered as part of Adaptive Management. 4.3 Individual Drainage Monitoring Programs This last tier of the WRIA 1 LTMP involves future monitoring programs designed and implemented as drainage -based management units are established. The WRIA 1 LTMP strategy is to develop a framework for the management units to adopt as their monitoring kVIRIA 1 Detailed Implementation Plan Ju[y 2007 Page 51 program. This framework uvill be developed as part of the Adaptive Management element of the LIMP. Section 5- WRIA 1 Long Term Monitoring Program Quality Assurance, Data Management, and Reporting The entities involved in water quality monitoring programs should have Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPP) associated with their collection activities. The QAPPs generally include information describing the project and /or problem the monitoring plan is designed to address, sampling techniques, analytical methods, quality controls, data management, and data validation /verification. Since all of the over- arching water quality monitoring stations are stations currently being monitored by an existing state or federal agency, the WRIA 1 LTNIP strategy is to rely on the QAPPs Prepared by those entities. The framework developed For monitoring programs that newly established drainage -based management units can adopt For their drainage, a QAPP template will be recommended such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency funded publication The VolunteerIiVIonitor'r Guide to Orrality Assuuance Project Plans. Additional quality assurance and data management considerations will be incorporated into the WRIA 1 LTNIP strategy as part of the WRIA 1 ISF /FH Technical Team and WRIA 1 Salmon Recovery Steering Committee Work Group's approach for developing a Habitat Monitoring Methodology for each parameter included in their methodology - (Appendix A). Section 6 — WRIA 1 Long Term Monitoring Strategy Recommendations and Milestones This section of the WRIA 1 LTNIP provides a summary of tasks and recommendations associated with implementing the WRIA 1 LTMP strategy. Table 3 is a summary of the recommendations, schedule, and identified lead. The WRIA 1 Detailed Implementation Plan includes additional detail for implementing the WRIA 1 LTMP Strategy and recommendations. 6.1 Data Collection DC1 - Identify a ground water monitoring program that supports the goals and objectives of the over - arching monitoring needs for the WRIA 1 LTMP (Section 3) and incorporate the program as an element of the WRIA 1 LTMP strategy. DC2 - Develop a process and associated agreements for including stream temperature and periodic dissolved oxygen measurements at all gage stations equipped with recorders or telemetry systems as identified in Table 2. The process should consider coordinating WRIA 1 Detailed Implementation Plan July- 2007 Page 52 efforts with Environment Canada for the three gages located on the north side of the U.S. /Canada boundary. DO — Secure agreements and /or funding for the stream gaging network identified in Table 1 of this document. Relative to other watersheds, WR.11t 1 has a large number of stream gaging stations. The annual cost to operate, maintain, and publish the results from each gaging station averages approximately $12,7001' bringing the annual cost for the 26" gage network to approximately $330,000. This stream gaging network is believed to be the minimum amount needed to reliably estimate stream flow from the numerous other ungaged drainages in WRiA 1. although the annual cost is relatively high, it may be a necessary annual expense in order to support knowledge -based decision making. DC4 — Correlate the existing gaging stations with each other over a range of flow conditions over the next two years. In addition, short -term (preferably one year duration) measurements should be conducted at ungaged drainages to establish correlations with existing stations. If certain gaging stations are found to be highly correlated with other gaging stations, it may be possible to reduce the annual cost associated with the 26 gaging station network in DC3. DC5 - Secure agreements and /or funding for water duality monitoring of a full range of parameters at Ecology Station ID Nos. 01N060, OlUO70, 0IPO80, O1A140, 01G070, and O1F070 (Table 2). Five of the six stations are currently being monitored (10/06 -9/07) under Ecology's 5 -year rotating sampling program (refer to iraterOuality, Section 4.1). DC6 - Develop a general framework for a drainage -based monitoring program that can be adopted by newly established drainage -based management units. DC7 - Review outcomes and recommendations included in the WRIA 1 ISF /FH Technical Team and the WRIA 1 Salmon Recovery Steering Committee Work Group's Habitat Monitoring Methodology scheduled for completion Jul}, 2007. Identify mechanism or next steps forincorporating applicable elements of the Habitat Monitoring Methodology and associated recommendations into the %X R A 1 LTMP strategy_ DC8 - Coordinate with entities involved in implementing complementary programs to identify additional monitoring needs such as temperature recorder at a downstream location on the Middle Fork, to obtain additional information on their programs such as current maps of active sampling locations, and duration of monitoring resource commitment for the complementary program. 15 USGS and EAP have different annual for their gages and publish results differently. This annual cost is an average of the total estimated annual cost of $330,000 divided by the total number of gages in the US regardless of the gage's sponsor. Costs associated with the three Environment Canada gages are not included. 16 This does not include the three gage stations located at the U.S. /Canada border operated by Environment Canada. Thcse three border gage stations, however, are critical to the overall stream gage network. IVRIA 1 Detailed Implementation Plan July 2007 Page 53 7 'J a C y 7 b L 5 u H a y C 1 E E O u y es x w 0 a E E Q v es a H �.1'. Cti a. E E � E y O C7 u �y� U0 PE L � c3 1- \ ~ u '.]G C L t J L E L .SJ a y C w C `•r C C C y v tLc SO 'v O u r O v C V) v -a � � •a d 5 �C10 Vu a u ;1 Ti bn l... cn i u '� 0 U C 0 `r r xa ca v E •° ° ca U .5 �. -�.'. N y C WQ J y Y u u •U 5f 31 r :. to y C J r E K Gn.J V J 3 C $_ o u ~ ❑ C J. W W fl .. v �. u v u u A.. •n _ y .p .ci: a ci v b u is U L C ]-� C 00 C CO C6 C p ]-�- C �, 00 C f— W CO C C C +LJ 1� yR-. O U n 00 N n cA 0 -, C GO O l� r- J C U a � a hi ,� ,� a� d u a0 ? � ay M u a.0 d � r N .. a�aC) E C �3 . v O L U •.Jn cs v Z) C h •r, C G C 0 O bL vi v z. l C E y y -. C C .C. II, C C C G / r7 W n u C E C O C C O C w y by C YG '� G C v O �n '�' -�' r GO w J v 'rt L tiG _C..' r v 5 -C C E C p .+ a u C u Sf 0 O •❑ C 5A r 'a C 0 r ' a 'C r O A. •- ,., x C C C C G sv. a cC•J a. E y :e C r E v E U E. cd -n W yU � .2 ...� 6G] � ��`-, N J y bL' ti w •^ u C1. L C W J J C1. N �' � �" l•J � O � W �. � O � r E. � - N y y �7. C 3 O 3G C / V L 3 u h C O R VI C U C cC8 _ O v ❑ v Cj •a tG0 3 3 c u 3 W avri [: - v N '� 0. �i C c i .i r G v E v g u C ,a0. `~' ' �4 w= r o L .hwi0 cu3 c E oC 0 n se r •� r. u ED u y 0 U V V Z L n U J m rn i� a U n w si Y V W Ld ii a A U u U L V U co U cq M L - d Ca q �.1'. Cti a. E 6.2 Data Nanagement DM1 - Identify a centralized system for managing data collected at stations identified in the overarching monitoring program of the WRU 1 LTMP strategy. As part of the data management system, consider approaches that involve interactive linkages to a GIS mapping system that will reflect changes, modifications, and data. Provide a clear linkage in the data management system to the process that will be used to update the WRIA 1 DSS and its underlying models. As part of a centralized data management system, consideration should also be given to a web -based too[ for communicating and coordinating data and related information between agencies, and that can be used to support public outreach and education. DM2 - Collaborate with entities implementing complementary monitoring programs to incorporate data into WRIA 1 Decision Support System data management system. Div13 - Coordinate with Department of Ecology to identify a format for Ecology to use in WRIA 1 to report the metered water use data that Ecology is currently required to collect. 6.3 Data Analysis DA1 - Establish a process for conducting local analysis of data for purpose of evaluating extent to which the goals and objectives identified in Section 3 are being addressed by the WRIA I LTMP. When appropriate, as part of the analysis recommendations should be made for modifications to the WRIA 1 LUMP strategy for consideration in Adaptive Management. Section 7— WRIA I Long Term Monitoring Program Adaptive Management The WRIA 1 LTMP adaptive management approach is designed to incorporate monitoring results from programs identified in the LTMP strategy back into the decision - making process in a manner consistent with the overall adaptive management approach described in the June 2005 WRIA 1 Watershed Management Plan. Ensuring monitoring results are appropriately influencing or being incorporated into management programs requires consistent dedication of resources including staff and funding. The steps associated with the WRIA 1 LTMP adaptive management approach, which will run concurrent with the WRIA 1 LUMP strategy implementation, include: 1. Evaluate monitoring data associated with the over - arching monitoring element of the WRIA 1 LUMP strategy and assess extent to which the goals and objectives identified in Section 3.0 have been achieved; 2. Evaluate monitoring data associated with complementary programs; 3. Evaluate status of implementing WRIA 1 LTMP recommendations in Section 6.0; %VR[A 1 Detailed Implementation Plan July 2007 Page 55 4. Evaluate status of funding to support implementation of WRIA 1 LTMP strategy; 5. Assess outcome of evaluations identified in numbers 1 -4 and determine appropriate adaptive management options; G. Implement the appropriate adaptive management action consistent with the adaptive management approach described in the W`RIA 1 Watershed Management Plan; and 7. Monitor the effects of the adaptive management actions. As part o E the adaptive management process, a project team involved with coordinating implementation of the WRIA 1 Watershed Management Plan will initiate the process for implementing the steps outlined above. The process taken will be consistent with organizational procedures identified for the WRLA 1 Watershed Management Project. WRIA I Detailed Implementation Plan Jiilv 2007 Page 56 Appendix C WRIA 1 Caucus Comments Reviewed by WRIA 1 Planning Unit WRIA 1 Detailed Emplementadon Plan July 2007 Page 57 cW v v r O .S "d U C r n O O y c 7 �l X1.1 u V C1 V L :J i1 'O v L, L, v U O V u V v H v Q v Cl. L.' CJ "n 00 CJ c C �4 CJ C3 '7 v -v U C v O r V C C O N Q cq v C C �1 v v C v Ei C :J V v v 3 M cl- r C u J V ��• yJ � J v � C ti U r y � V cl C� v cl V E C C O N C L4 bjD -10 ^� f1 � C a� 3L1 ❑�-. � y a� ° v � L L J co Ln t4 Pil r- O O N c C G :J Q ° v � � rn Q. J C P4 C� O to C r v r ';>A CJ �4 y C " O 'y' C a, a y y 'El W U U O U V) Li r W w rm L'A c3 CC.I J O v - .� C 5r Qr vC C 3 u 'rte N CJ u 'O V V cr�.e �' ; O -C4 • C 7W.1 � C '� N � y f L N � 3.. V C —nJ-i GL v v r C Cl O N y w �: O ' � C 'u O '7 u v C F"'� v 7 •�. C.1 ul 'u n r O a�i r L4 W 5 • �' L4 ° F.yyn U o O a, C: ct t O � r d C D. J � � W C --d J v L4 ��r as •r. r to] t+1 u V 73 u n u C �, y s4 .S L v , C -k j A ti r i y0.' V —yi C. R.. L4 u rn N J r C L .0 v .n C u tIl U C V s 4, 7 c3 fC ._ a C� C s D bio ct ° y �` L'• 74, y 6 C v w U bn bA �, O ,� • � b4 cCs O u O cvs Y Q- r *+ V O '- O Ct" O bz u L0 1� L �r.l FrC!I 4-1 Ci L yO., ��7j M y V f1. .CC r '•' O �-+ O vi H C aV-+ _ '� ct 'd 14 '� v C C C E C C pQ `� '� x u 7 : L v O rn Ei a z u 7 v 2 w COL 7 n o 5 6,; c O Z N :� u co Ln t4 Pil r- O O N c C G :J Q r 0 0 N Q 2 Ra v v v q [ v C •� � w � r c3 O y P4 a o c u u cs w ~ 7; c3 L r c3 L -Zzl "j. - C C • a'1. u a� •n O~-r 0.l u Q 0 Si v CJ y 4J .� v v a r • v w c v ai C: y [ v E ;; 0 c -c u E c Q U G u � r Gs C � C v C y y C C O ct L SV cl, u w a1 y y C C. C C 'D E q y C C O Ce X es n tLcn w v s'i c3 y C C u cy v cl 3 Qj a, C A V u n v N y fll C v > C _C: 0.01 O u J u �FF�� LJ C tX, �+ Sw .'`.A fl.. a b C n �+ G u 142 cd Ln v y ~ vy O • G 1-4 it V �-- Cd u Qi ' C ,J•i rte+ .��..I y u Gs .7 uw i C m N �1 k4. y J y ca -Va b0 t4 u os 2 u C a.+ w a C �-' a C am-' O b0 rA u^ 0 CL r 14 y� n a1 O _•� w C k v 0 J y W rrrr��� � L � r � v (n : v C "D bjD v c 0 z in n ov U Cad U r 0 0 N Q 2 Ra 0 r- 0 N C 0 C u fl. Q V u u u ) Q1 U4 14 w C: " r-4 3 cS > P-4 '0 C u r r cs Q La C '� ? r u ' y .Q r 71 u N 0 C n�J v y 'b v O ny p C C r C C W ti v aU w y� � u E y a y U 14 � y � U w C U ° -u °i x Cn . u C r Q) C X C LL u bA 0 U u p, �' y y G P, U P— o v 3 � v C w c a n x 3 v CL c3 v c3 P. L; L .f Vl - Q • U i C a ; w o -d ° 0 u y v U o N c_— L Q) 'G D y L 4 �• r', Q C Z C C N v C _ n O O- v Fy r C y u Q) CL Q •� - L h!] L] X O — WA U7, v X y v a N u4 :J n ` C y CC ai 4' �' Q' �C r O C c3 y O ri 1-4 u q y �" y y Aa h 4 -0 J O i U N QJ a C w O • O 0 C .y/ w N E C 3 x a p o, A L n U .� 3 L 4J y 04 O u 'r. y o U o x H y '" Ll. v a `" °v' e >" i v !n L u m rc;s x n. " �, a a a o cA q ° o U 00 Q" c' rl O G' C `� • _I n bO i% lii L4 Q y ��S v p U W o c4 w u Q 0 y tn cs i G G I-ti 0 0 N 'C Q r. 3 a Vl �H c clq Vr. M N J C1 00 e c 1 7f M pono m Ln L r C 4 zi -cl C ti C C r u U v c L2 u -c �1 5n L •may .� (U C1 v (U x f#- 1! U 3 a� r y w y V C u r x C H a .0 0 r 3 x s.i -0 _ QJ L C O 0; z C „C C: r r �" •� U Vl N .�{'. .. �J .� � N 41 U o o -U 3 0 r w O O+ y�• V cs L N r cs u ' b L C 00 001 •� "� b v �v C u Q N y N j y [ O z� Ln 00 ON U c%) G G I-ti 0 0 N 'C Q cli 0 N c r. c 0 Cy C.i 11 c to on 3 E -d Q ❑. u ,, v r do [� „ C C R. C C u v C O u C v v o A. Q u cl , V ,y u u Iri F-' .14 -d am u �r". V CL c-. V u .� [ Q.. E y 75 C 0 +a p O p O" w v G cl R. c u Ou C `u r O cl C u C v v u cl cl u V � a) 3 £•� aZ�4 Cl. R. y C 7d O O u vi 0 F f � v fl, U cd G tdi �+ C ��" C O C C3 C3 s-. T v C/7 ca c3 C O z N N N U Cd cli 0 N c r. c 0 Cy C.i Following are the comments received by June 18, 2007 from WRIA 1 Planning Unit caucuses. The comments below were excerpted and compiled into the comment response table included in this appendix. The WRIA 1 Planning Unit reviewed the comment response table and the original comments received by June 18, 2007 at the Planning Unit meeting on June 20, 2007. Water District Caucus COMMENTS ON DETAILED IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (DIP) Attribution. We have commented in the past that it would improve communication if WRIA documents gave names of actual individuals, in addition to organizational designations. We don't generally know who is on staff and technical teams, serving in lead roles, etc. Governance The document on Governance Structure states "...the June 2005 WRIA 1 Watershed Management Plan references a long -term strategy that envisions a single management approach for long -term water resource management." The relevant WMP citation appears to be based on Section 4 /Line 64 et seq (February 2005 Final Draft): "One of the recommendations put forth by the Working Group is based on the approach of a single management entity with a dedicated funding source." There was no consensus on these points, and the DIP now talks about a single approach rather than a single entity, and leaves open the question of funding. The question is what is meant by a single approach — for example, does this term imply that the approach outlined in the Governance document would preempt and/or delay other efforts? Instream Flows. The DIP envisions that Target Flows from the pilot projects will come to the Planning Unit for approval. It seems unrealistic for the Planning Unit to sanction the technical validity of such results. The Planning Unit lacks resources to perform this sort of oversight effectively. Because the pilots are intended to provide potential models for other negotiations, however, the Planning Unit could address the process and principles the pilot projects have used in producing their recommendations. We might also reasonably review management recommendations associated with Target Flow proposals. County Comprehensive Water Resources Integration Project. The County has recently moved to attempt a more coordinated approach to water resource planning. What is the impact of this project on the implementation plan, and on the County's policy of "no policy" in the WRIA i planning process? WRIA I Detailed Implementation Plan July 2007 Page 63 Non - Government Water Systems Caucus Comments on .tune 7 2007 WRIA l DIP Docs Skip Richards, Planning Unit Representative, Non - Government Water Systems (NGWS) Caucus Errata: It would appear that in the .pdf file Page 14 Table 3 is not clearly labeled as such. Substantive comments: The NGWS caucus stands ready to approve the DIP docs, with these caveats, which it requests be incorporated into the document as an appendix, as was done in Appendix G of the WMP. Long -term Monitoring Plan. The sooner, the better. The more, the better. See comments on Governance and Funding. Natural Resource Policy Integration Program (NRPIP): The goal of integrating existing WRIA -wide regulatory programs like Shorelines, Critical Areas, etc. and building more effective interfaces with other policy planning and regulatory programs such as transportation, etc. is a good one. I supported it in principle during the development of the WMP and I still do. Given how many such programs there are, and how disjointed they are, having each been initiated under different, and sometimes conflicting, legislative mandates, often by different elements of the staff, and in response to input from differing interests within the broader community, etc., the effort involved to achieve the goal at the WRIA -wide level might require more time and staff resources than is cost - effective. I support continuing to work on investigating the feasibility of the NRPIP, but I raise this caveat in order to alert participants to the need to keep an eye on the point of diminishing returns. Meanwhile, however, the Drainage - based Management (DBM) approach can provide a way to put NRPIP to work in a meaningful way, on the ground where it counts, immediately, without waiting to achieve the grand integration at the WRIA -wide level. The CAO already provides a council - discretion exemption for drainages that have achieved an approved watershed plan. Yes, progress at that level is slow, too, but it promises to deliver real results on the ground sooner than other pathways. Given the challenge facing the grand integration process, then, the first element thereof should be to place such exemptions in all other NRP regulations in order to remove at least one key set of obstacles remaining to the achievement of DBM and NRPI. Salmon Recovery and Watershed Planning: Of all the elements of NRPIP, this one is the most critical to the future success of the WMP and to the natural resource policy goals of the community as a whole. Especially given the virtual coincidence in the goals of these Siamese twin sisters, it is most unfortunate that the two efforts were surgically bifurcated by the state legislature in the first place. Given the need to move ahead locally on both fronts, there was no choice but to do what has been done, but now we're going to have to redo some of it. The biggest problem relates to the differing WRIA 1 Detailed Implementation Plan July 2007 Page 64 governance structures for the two processes, especially the mechanisms to incorporate stakeholder input. In the 13 years I've been paying close attention to or directly involved in stakeholder processes, which includes the state Dept of Health Water Supply Advisory Committee, established by the legislature in 1995, where I served two years as chair, the WRIA 1 Watershed Management Project has the most effective stakeholder process of which I have any knowledge. It has been transparent, accountable, and, given the huge deficits in trust and understanding between many of the participants, stemming from mutually inflicted socio- cultural and economic wounds going back, in some cases, for over a century and a half, it has been highly effective in starting solidly down a path toward achieving the goals established for it by the Watershed Management Act. The Planning Unit's consensus decision process, widely viewed with skepticism across the spectrum, has produced, among other things, a robust General Scope of Work, a Technical Scope of Work, and a carefully constructed first phase of a comprehensive Watershed Management Plan, the latter developed in the absence of badly needed work product from the technical side that remains undelivered at of this writing. Nothing of the kind can be said for the stakeholder process employed during the development of the Salmon Recovery Plan, nor does the legislation that brought that process into being require anything like the Planning Unit structure or function. Be that as it may, however, if it is the intent of the Joint Board to achieve, and for the state agencies to support, an eventual integration of the two processes, including the stakeholder input process, as envisioned in Phase 3 of Appendix A of the DIP dots, then such an arrangement will require essentially the same kind of structure and function as the Planning Unit, otherwise the integrity and capacity of the tatter will be compromised, and this member thereof will resist heading in any direction that even hints at any such result. If the Salmon Recovery effort wishes to maintain a stakeholder input process similar to that it has employed before, it has every right to do so, but the decision to do so will in turn require abandonment of the integration of at least the stakeholder elements of the two processes, or risk setting the WMP on a collision course with the Salmon Recovery effort. Governance and Funding: Selling the concept: The governance and funding subcommittee should begin to meet as soon as possible. It should begin where the Planning Unit left off, looking at not only the benefits resulting from the implementation of the WMP, but also the costs of NOT implementing the WMP. A good start on defining those costs was abandoned prior to the completion of Phase One of the WMP, but that effort must be taken back up again if we are to succeed in convincing perennially cash - strapped local jurisdictions to pony up the resources necessary to make this ambitious plan a reality. Funding source(s): Placing the entire burden of funding the implementation of the WMP upon one jurisdiction is the simplest approach, but probably the least palatable. The WMP was created with input by all local jurisdictions, and they all will benefit, so there is as much logic to asking them all to contribute, proportional to their tax base. In the alternative, a special purpose district could be formed, the ,boundaries of which would be coterminous with those of WRIA 1, specifically for the purpose of raising the needed funds. WRIA 1 Detailed Implementation Plan Judy 2007 Page 65 Governing Structure: The integration of watershed planning with Salmon Recovery seems a logical step. Again, it is unfortunate the two were ever separated in the first place. The burden should be on those who advocate any other course that adoption by the Salmon Recovery program of a Planning Unit -like structure and function. If the operation of the Planning Unit had produced nothing but the churning chaos predicted by the skeptics, that would be one thing. To the contrary, the Planning Unit has succeeded, despite all of the obstacles noted above, and more besides, and it would the height of folly to disregard that success when designing what amounts to a parallel process with highly overlapping goals. It is difficult to see how the two processes can achieve their coincident goals absent integration. It is difficult to see how overall integration of the two processes could be effective absent integration of the stakeholder input element. The initial discussions of the stakeholder element in the proposed three phases of the integration process were lame. The typical stakeholder input process permits staff to cherry pick input, which in turn discourages involvement and prevents the level of quality contribution by community members at the level achieved by the Planning Unit, where community input originated and drove many of the most productive efforts of the group, including the General Scope of Work, the Management Options Catalog and Criteria for Evaluating Solutions. It would appear the Salmon Recovery staff is fearful of that level of community input, which does not bode well for the final outcome of the Salmon Recovery effort. The central issue appears to be that a planning unit type of process would put the stakeholders in a decision making mode, as opposed to a merely advisory mode. The [Tanning Unit has demonstrated that that approach not only works, it produces far superior results than the traditional stakeholder input method. Perhaps once the higher level integration envisioned in Phases I and 2 is achieved, the rest of it won't be perceived by the principals as a threat any longer. I certainly hope so, because the perceived threat of a disempowerment of the conununity via a disabling of the Planning Unit is certainly a real one that will loom over future proceedings so long as it remains unresolved in a positive direction. Caucus profusion: I raised the issue regarding WIDs becoming a caucus at the May 23 meeting. I raised that issue not to advocate such a course, but to ensure that issues of adequacy of representation do not arise in the future because we failed to recognize and address the problem now. I propose that an explicit policy be considered for adoption by the Planning Unit and Joint Board, that groups of whatever status, government or non - government, formed as a resu It of or in response to the implementation of the WMP should specifically be barred fxom becoming caucuses. Private Well Owners Caucus From WRIA 1 Planning Unit Representative: After e- mailing the information on the DIP Draft and Appendix A and B to the small group of caucus member who have WMP discs and attended meetings discussing sections of WMP some had a tough time reading, printing, and or relating how they will be affected by it a PWO's. Others thought the level of coordination between different agencies is to be applauded. Nolte objected nor do 1, to the DIP Draft. WMA 1 Det:uled Implementation Plan duty 2007 Page 66 From Caucus Member: I have read the documents provided and have the following comments from a private well owner perspective. I did not find anything in the content that indicates private well owners have a voice in the Goverance Structure document. It is apparent that private well owners will be impacted at some point in time based on the content of the monitoring program draft. Since there is a lack of documented history with regards to water levels of the water resources such as Ten Mile Creek which these efforts are trying to protect and salvage, it is apparent that items such as creek water levels are going to be set at arbitrary values. It appears that the emphasis of the contents of these documents is to try to include the various agencies who should have a voice but there is nothing which indicates that private well owners collectively have any voice. It is possible that private well owners could and probably will be seriously impacted. Since Ten Mile Creek runs through a corner of my property, I am aware of the water level changes that seem to occur during the year and consequently I feel that we try to conserve the use of water. My neighbors do not seem to care what the water level is based on water that gets pumped out during summer months onto bean fields. I cannot make a usable copy of the spread sheet due to the way it has been created. I understand that an effort is in process to develop a plan for Ten Mile Creek which I assume is similar to the Bertrand Creek effort. Who is in charge of this? WRIA I Detailed Implementation Plan ,ul� 2007 Page 67 Appendix D Other WRIA 1 Caucus Comments WRIA 1 ]Detailed Implementation Plan July 2007 Page 68 The comments presented below were received from caucus representatives after June 18, 2007 and tvete not reviewed by the WRIA 1 Planning Unit on June 20, 2007 as part of the comment response table. The Planning Unit discussed the points covered in the comments at the June 20"' meeting in general and as part of other comments received. The June 20, 2007 Planning Unit meeting summary is provided in Appendix C. Comments from Caucuses Received After June 18, 2007 Land Development Caucus Comments We believe it is premature to institute the Detailed Implementation Plan (DIP) before all of the modeling from Utah State University (USU) has been analyzed, although we are willing to discuss it. We feel that any approvals of future WRIA items and DIP items should be done with WRIA #1 Planning Unit approval, and using the same processes that we have used for the last almost ten years. We believe that quarterly meetings to discuss DIP processes might be one way to keep the Planning Unit in the loop. All major issues, including major funding issues, should go back to the Planning Unit for discussion. We are not satisfied that the information that we have received in response to our completing the WRIA #I Planning Process will do anything to release water rights, and look forward to further discussion on this process. We believe, beyond instituting the Middle Fork and Ten -Mile Creek which are in process anyway, that no further implementation should be done until the pilot project on Bertrand Creek is completed. We want to see results from Bertrand Creek before we are comfortable going forward with any further pilot projects, and especially before we are comfortable instituting such processes WRIA -wide. We want to wait on implementation until the pilot projects are completed and the data from USU is analyzed. • We absolutely do not like the proposed WRIA 91 structure. Phase 3 in particular is too vague, and there are too many hidden policy considerations in these structures. We would be comfortable retaining Whatcom County as the lead entity for WRIA. We especially do not like the 5010 (3) component to proposed Phase 3. We are opposed to tying up public funds to benefit a nonprofit, and there are too many legal issues with this idea for us to be comfortable with this. We believe that we should wait on any instream flow negotiation until the models from USU are analyzed, and until we have results from the Bertrand Creek process. Once we have information from the Bertrand Creek process and the work that the WID is doing, then we would feel more comfortable discussing fitture instream flow negotiations. %KrM% I Detailed Iinpleinerntation Plan July 2007 Page 69 We are not excited about the idea that salmon recovery and WRIA I. should merge. Some caucus members have concerns that WRIA was a process that encompassed much more than salmon recovery; there are other byproducts of instream flow besides salmon recovery. Other caucus members were concerned that salmon recovery funds may be placed in jeopardy, as they usually are for a specific purpose. The only way that we would be comfortable considering this idea is if the Planning Unit merges with salmon recovery, that the Planning Unit is still the lead agency, and that whatever entity arrives out of this merger would have the same rules, process, and procedures as the original WRIA process. We expect all important issues to be returned to the Planning Unit, using the same structure and processes that we are used to. Non - Government Water Systems- Additional Comments A few other points have arisen as the result of discussing the DIP with other caucuses: 1. Planning Unit should be kept in the loop with more frequent updates and given the opportunity and mechanism to self - convene should some WRIA- related development so warrant. 2. PIanning Unit caucuses should be receiving regular updates from the Bertrand pilot project. 3. Any new WIDs or other sorts of drainage processes should automatically include Planning Unit caucuses in notifications of meetings, actions, plans, etc. WRIA l Detailed Implementation Plan July 2007 Page 70